Talk:Ancient Egyptian race controversy

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

Image from the Book of Gates

I do not have any specialism in Egyptology or Genealogy but I think that the labels from both the images (at page head and later under 'Ancient Egyptian texts and inscriptions' heading) have been confused. It currently states “A portion of the Book of Gates showing the four nations of men, depicting (from top right): Libyan, Nubian, Asiatic, Egyptians, from the tomb of Seti I."

Proposing reversing depiction of Libyan and Asiatic, as the image just does not seem to relate to description. As I say I do not have in depth knowledge apart from cross-referencing Libyan and Asiatic genotypes, so please feel free to return to a previous revision if it is in fact correct. This post can be deleted if agreed the change is correct, I just don’t want to cause a debate on what is a topic containing strong feelings :) Ginga123 (talk) 00:22, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Actually I don't understand the need of mentioning twice the same picture. In this controversy, it would have been better to show the other interesting picture; that of the tomb of Ramesses III where the Egyptian and the Nubian are depicted almost in the similar manner. But maybe people don't like this way of presenting facts, even if from the ancient Egyptian perspective!--Lusala lu ne Nkuka Luka (talk) 21:00, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

I’m not sure if you are making this suggestion tongue in cheek?

Per Frank Yurco, this particular illustration is a printing error by a publisher who added a supplementary section (the so-called Erganzungsband) to a reprint of Lepsius’ work long after his death, working from Lepsius’ original notes. (Seemingly the illustration from the tomb of Ramses III shows only three of the “nations”, and the publisher was expecting four “nations” - as appears in all the other versions of this text). – see e.g. http://groups.google.com/group/sci.archaeology/msg/4a0952a05d6c434c

Yurco was a respected mainstream scholar who believed in the “African-ness” of the ancient Egyptians, while Manu Ampim seemingly believes the whole world has been participating in a centuries-long global conspiracy to erase the “blackness” of the ancient Egyptians by systematically destroying evidence and even faking dozens of paintings and statues.

I haven’t been inside KV 11 myself, but until then I am inclined to accept the word of the respected scholar over that of the conspiracy-theorist.

Wdford (talk) 23:19, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

article scope

as the article title makes clear, this article is about the Afrocentric "race controversy", not about prehistoric Egypt in general. In spite of this, yet again we have a large amount of material about prehistoric populations in Egypt completely unrelated to Afrocentrism. I have grouped this material in a separate section. It should be split off, to an article on population history of Egypt vel sim. --dab (𒁳) 07:03, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Isn't is fascinating how Dbachmann appoints himself as God, butchers an article that is under probation without any discussion, and unilaterally changes the entire thrust of the article to make it an Afrocentric issue? We had long since agreed that this issue is broader than Afrocentrism - who authorised Dbachmann to unilaterally narrow the scope? The reason for the existence of the controversy includes the differing interpretations of the "ancient" material, including their art, their physical remains and the DNA of their descendents. This material should not have been split off without discussion, and I personally think it is better to have it included here where it can be seen by those interested in the controversy. And finally, per WP:IG, "However, the use of galleries (usually by way of the gallery tag or gallery template) may be appropriate in Wikipedia articles where a collection of images can illustrate aspects of a subject that cannot be easily or adequately described by text or individual images. The images in the gallery collectively must have encyclopedic value and add to the reader's understanding of the subject." Since the many thousands of ancient images and statues are a big part of the controversy, I am confident that this gallery qualifies for inclusion. Who gave Dbachmann the authority to unilaterally decide otherwise? Wdford (talk) 11:37, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

So now Dbachmann is back, and of cause let's say welcome to endless nonsense controversies! Wdford, you have to arm yourself with patience.--Lusala lu ne Nkuka Luka (talk) 12:08, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I think this was already thoroughly debated and discussed in The various talk page archives. There is no need to limit the scope on the article, specifically since it exists both within and outside Afrocentrism. Wapondaponda (talk) 20:14, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

This is unacceptable. I have reverted all of Dbachmann's edits by restoring the whole page to a previous incarnation. We've reached a consensus on the format of this article Dbachmann and you pretty much destroyed it. Next time consult with the other editors BEFORE making such aggressive edits. This controversy goes beyond Afrocentrism. It is as old as the field of Egyptology itself and the article should reflect that. AncientObserver (talk) 04:37, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

What is unacceptable is the gradual deterioration of an article that had finally been cleaned up after endless prancing around. This article has to be compared to the cleaned up, encyclopedic revision built by Moreschi last August. The article looked ok until February this year[1]. After that, the Afrocentrist cranks have moved back in and butchered it. If in any doubt, we shall revert back to the February version (nota bene, probation was already in effect back then[2]) and start working from there.

If you want to discuss Afrocentric ideas on Wikipedia, you must be aware of WP:TIGERS. We can discuss extreme or fringy views, encyclopedically. We cannot tolerate editors who actually push such views.

As for the population history of Egypt material, this is a perfectly valid topic, but it has nothing to do with Afrocentric pseudo-history, hence it is off topic to this article. It deserves a standalone article. If you are genuinely interested in discussing these questions for their own merit, as opposed to within a petty ideological agenda, you should be perfectly happy to go and work on population history of Egypt. This article here most certainly should not "go beyond Afrocentrism" in any way, because in comparison to any subject that is actually mainstream or scholarly, Afrocentrism pales into insignificance per WP:DUE. The only place where we can give weight to fringe views is in articles dedicated to fringe views. The non-Africentrist (i.e. mainstream) discussion of the population history of Egypt should be discussed in an article not swamped by tangents on Afrocentrist ideology. This article is population history of Egypt.

As for compiling our own image gallery to "illustrate" the controversy, that's a clear no-go based on WP:SYNTH. --dab (𒁳) 14:27, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

We had previously discussed the scope and the discussions are available on the archives. It was determined, that limiting the controversy to Afrocentrism was not accurate, as the controversy had existed up to 100 years before the afrocentrism movement. This particular publication Egypt land: race and nineteenth-century American Egyptomania. Wapondaponda (talk) 15:42, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Having never looked at this before, this article may be the worst article on the entire site. I have never seen so much fringy-OR and synthesis (multiple image galleries in the middle of the article!) ever. To add insult to injury, this article is apparently under "probation," which I guess means that single-purpose accounts can show up and make the article even worse without any reprecussions whatsoever. Bravo! Hipocrite (talk) 17:25, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

This is incorrect, Dab. There is no “deterioration” of this article; on the contrary, it is well referenced and relevant to the topic. Moreschi’s version was a non-article, which said nothing and helped nobody. We realise that certain people would actually prefer to pretend that the controversy doesn’t exist, but that’s POV in itself, and it’s not the consensus.

I am fully opposed to the Afrocentrist cranks, and I have actively opposed their POV all along by repeatedly and constructively editing their bull out of this article – but I believe the article is now balanced and relevant, and fully referenced. If you disagree with any particular facts then let’s discuss it and sort it, but a wild Stalinist brainwash is not appropriate or acceptable.

I agree with you that the population history of Egypt material is a perfectly valid stand-alone topic, but as the players in the controversy (including a number of genuine scientists) often refer to it to support their arguments, it is very relevant material in an article about the controversy and should be included. I can live with a separation of the material on the basis that the main article is getting very long, but I also believe that a summary paragraph and a detailed link is both appropriate and necessary in this article.

I agree with you that some of the more extreme views of Afrocentrism are “fringe”, but they do not have a monopoly on this particular debate, and we should not allow them to assume a monopoly on this article.

However I disagree with your views about the gallery – ancient art is often pointed to as “evidence” of the race of the ancient Egyptians, and its necessary and appropriate to give some examples which illustrate why the issue is not as clear-cut as a layman might assume. This is permitted by WP:IG. The exact choice of images can be debated, but the need for illustrations is clear and supportable.

Please stop with the KGB approach – you are entitled to your views but your views are no more or less correct than anybody else, and a consensus has emerged which differs from the Moreschi Agreement of almost a year ago. Please engage with us constructively. Wdford (talk) 17:48, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree with much of what Wdford has said regarding the article. At present, the article is quite comprehensive covering most of what is known regarding the racial characteristics of the Egyptians the associated controversies. The population history of Egypt is a valid article but we cannot completely divorce population history from Race. Especially since much of the controversy centers on predynastic egypt. The article is quite long and there are some sections that I could do without, but there are other editors who think they are important. For now I can live with them. The gallery is quite large, and I think that all images in it should somehow relate to the controversy. In the future maybe we will rename the article "Race of the Ancient Egyptians, because not everything that is known about the Ancient Egyptians is controversial. The emerging consensus is that the Egyptians were an indigenous African people, the controversy is whether indigenous African is equated to Black African, or it can mean North African, mixed or even caucasoid. Wapondaponda (talk) 18:28, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Protected

This is a gross over-reaction by an ill-informed admin.

There is no edit war here, just a single editor who made seriously disruptive edits against a firm consensus because he personally opposes the existence of the article. There is no unbalance in the content, the mainstream opinion is clearly stated in all sections, all content is closely referenced, and all content closely links to the title. The disruptive editor was not prepared to seek consensus as required by policy, but instead bull-dozed away months of work that was undertaken in good faith.

Why has this admin reverted to an arbitrary and seriously-incomplete version of the article? How does this crippled and useless version represent an improvement? Why did this admin take this action unilaterally, based on the whining of a single editor but without engaging the many editors who actually worked on this article? Did that admin bother to check all the references to the many aspects of the content, so as to verify the scientific foundations thereof, or was the admin swayed by personal perceptions of the subject matter?

Please could an objective admin unblock this article, re-instate the months of work that have built this article up since this deliberately-useless version, and demand of disruptive editors that they justify their actions in terms of wikipolicy? Wdford (talk) 20:44, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I have posted a thread Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Ancient_Egyptian_race_controversy. Wapondaponda (talk) 20:46, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

My response is at the thread noted by Wapondaponda. Hiberniantears (talk) 21:05, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Do you have a response to the requests to unlock the page and allow progressive discussion and editing to take place or are you going to leave the article the way it is? AncientObserver (talk) 12:27, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Editors can continue work on this new page while we wait for Hiberniantears to inform us of his decision. AncientObserver (talk) 12:27, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Absolutly not. That is not how we do things here. If you want to create a draft article while this is protected, feel free to to do so in your userspace. Also, don't unilateraly move articles to new names, especially if you're going to rewrite (er, copypasta) them from scratch. Hipocrite (talk) 12:37, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Hipocrite, can you be more respectful of other users? Who are you? Are you the owner of Wikipedia? You better change your language.--Lusala lu ne Nkuka Luka (talk) 16:54, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

If you go to Dbachmann's talk page you will notice that he and Hiberniantears have been discussing ways to control this article. They have branded the other editors here "trolls" and "socks" and it is obvious that Hiberniantears aims to work with Dbachmann to fulfill whatever agenda he has planned for this article. I recommend seeking aid from objective Admins to stop them from destroying all of the progress that has been made on this article over the past few months. These two are only interested in stamping out heresy. You cannot trust someone who brands you a threat to Wikipedia. AncientObserver (talk) 16:28, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

I think there are things people who are new here do just not realise. Dbachmann is known to be a troublemaker here in Wikipedia. When people discuss things he disappears. When they are at work, he appears to disrupt the whole work. He likes doing that. I remember that in November 2007 he was subjet to an inquiry. I even took part in it. Here it is Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Dbachmann 3. He repeats his behavior this time again.--Lusala lu ne Nkuka Luka (talk) 20:52, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

What course of action do you recommend Lusala? It is obvious that we are not going to get this matter resolved without administrative action. I know policy around here is to assume good faith but I do not trust Hiberniantears after reading his conversation with Dab. He has made it clear that he intends to aid his agenda in controlling this page. AncientObserver (talk) 21:21, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Good observation Luka. From the discussion AncientObserver has pointed out it is obvious that Hiberniantears has become personally involved in this controversy. I have posted another thread Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Hiberniantears

Straw poll

William Connolley who just protected the article say he may consider a non-binding straw poll. We can conduct a quick straw poll to determine where interested parties stand. The first option, (option 1) the article should be limited to a discussion of Afrocentrism and the race of the Ancient Egyptians. This option is somewhat represented by the current protected version. The second option (option2) is that the article should not limited to Afrocentrism but the scope of the article should include all reliable sources that have dealt with the racial and ethnic characteristics of the Ancient Egyptians. This option roughly equates to the previous version.

All sources, not limited to Afrocentrism(option 2)

• Support Wapondaponda (talk) 23:07, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
• Support Wdford (talk) 23:11, 19 June 2009 (UTC) : Readers who have heard about the controversy will want info on the full story, not just a limited section thereof. If we limit this article then a complementary article will be required to cover the rest of the substance.
• Support AncientObserver (talk) 23:12, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
• Support Lusala lu ne Nkuka Luka (talk) 23:25, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
• Support Taharqa (talk) 12:33, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Stopped beating wife

• Oppose? This poll is poorly constructed. Hipocrite (talk) 13:49, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Comments about straw poll

comment I do not want to take a position in this poll yet - I think it is ill-conceived because it seems basically designed to identify two sides in an edit war - i do not think this is a productive use of time. The way to resolve an edit war is to come up with a poll that identifies more specific and probably just plain more options, to help people identify where there is agreement, and to help people understand the nature of disagreement, and to suggest possibilities people haven't thought of yet that may lead to consensus. In the meantime I just want to register that I have a major concern about the article prior to the Dbachman edits. I am concerned that much of the article included "Original Research," and also that the article was a POV and not just a content fork. I make this point WITHOUT commenting on Dbachman's edits or whether they were right or wrong. I would encourage editors here to discuss WHY it is that an article on the racial identity of ancient Egyptions merits its own article and ot just a section in the article on ancient Egyptian history, and also whether this article is being used to present research done by established (i.e., published in peer-reviewed ournals) scholars, or research by Wikipedia editors? I myself have fallen into the temptation to try to put my own research findings in articles, and have needed to be shown the difference between my own arguments and conclusions versus those "out there" in the scholarly community. I think this is a concern editors working on this page should consider carefully and take seriously. Slrubenstein | Talk 00:50, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

I've removed some comments I regard as unhelpful - see next section. Sl: it would be helpful if you could provide examples of OR William M. Connolley (talk) 15:32, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

All material on what ancient Egyptians looked like seems to violate OR, because the connection between what Heerodytos or Aeschylus said a few people looked like, and what modern race they belong to, is a connection being made only by the editor. Slrubenstein | Talk 15:41, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Slrubenstein, the article is dealing with the race of the ancient Egyptians, not with the modern race they would belong to. Cheikh Anta Diop has quoted Herodotus about the blackness of the Egyptians. I have before me the first volume of Black Athena. At page 242 it quotes Herodotus speaking of the same blackness. One can put those quotes if necessary.--Lusala lu ne Nkuka Luka (talk) 16:43, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Does Heroditus identify a "race?" Does he use the word "race?" What does he mean by race if indeed he uses the word race? So far you have provided only evidence of an OR violation - Herodotus describes the appearance of people, and from that you decide what race they belong to. I didn't see anything in the article to identify their race based on Herodotus. Slrubenstein | Talk 02:13, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Well Slrubenstein, this is why there is a controversy. Many Afrocentrists are aware of the Herodotus passage, and draw OR opinions from it, and then quote it widely as "evidence" that the Egyptians were Black like them. Other scholars have pointed out that the passage was mistranslated - Herodotus did not say "Black" as such in a modern racial sense. You are correct that Herodotus was not commenting on the race of the people he saw, but nonetheles the comment has become one of the cornerstones of the 'controversy', and thus to leave it out altogether would be wrong. Wdford (talk) 06:48, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

The straw poll is indeed a straw man. The main criticism about this article is that it does not discuss the controversy, but uses primary sources (including images and ancient greek texts) to push one or the other side in that controversy. Afrocentrism is certainly a valid topic, but what Herodot wrote or which colours an ancient Egyptian painter used is not. How modern scholars interpret those original sources is relevant. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:54, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

On the contrary, the controversy exists precisely because there are these differing viewpoints. It would be impossible to explain the controversy without explaining the differing viewpoints, and the "evidence" on which these viewpoints are founded. This included presenting samples of the material in question so that readers of the article can see it for themselves, rather than merely quoting third-party interpretations thereof - surely this is valid? As long as the article doesn't take a side, then the objective is achieved and NPOV is upheld. I don't believe the article was taking sides - the various editors came from different camps, and each ensured the other viewpoint never got preference - in other words, self-regulation through mutual tension. The wording of the article made it clear that there was no common interpretation, so why should these examples be considered OR? Do you have any other examples of "possible OR" that are concerning you? Wdford (talk) 18:26, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Of course it is impossible to explain the controversy without explaining the different viewpoints. But you indeed need to do that by quoting notable opinions of people in the controversy, or even better, opinions of reliable scholars commenting on the controversy. Look e.g. at the Punt section in [3]. It is unclear how this is connected to the controversy, but to an uncritical reader it suggests "Eqyptians think they came from Punt, which is in Somalia, and hence they were black". --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:49, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Stephan, how is it unclear how the location of Punt is connected to the controversy? The Ancient Egyptians named Punt as their ancestral homeland. The section you cited reports on the theories of various commentators speculating on the location of Punt, which they considered to be relevant to the racial affiliation of the Ancient Egyptians. AncientObserver (talk) 04:23, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Stephan. Your Punt example is a case in point - if the Egyptians came originally from Punt in Somalia, then they were probably Black like current Somali's. However if they came from Punt in Arabia, then they were probably Semitic. The argument about where they came from originally is thus directly related to their race. The real answer is unknown, but the article quoted respected scholars who follow the "Somali" camp, and it also quoted respected scholars who cite strong evidence pointing to Arabia. The mainstream currently believes Punt was in Somalia, but the ancient evidence for Arabia is also strong, hence there is a controversy. This is not OR, and to leave this out would devalue the article. Wdford (talk) 06:32, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

And there is your OR. None of us (I presume) know what colour people from Somalia had around 10000 years ago. On the other hand, we all (again I presume) know that the human race originally came from Africa, and at that time likely all were of a similar (probably dark) colour (Some of us may even know that the great apes, on the other hand, have light skin under dark hair, so skin colour is a very transient characteristic). None of us can evaluate the probability that the Egyptian legends of origin are true. Even if they are true, we don't know if they refer to the mass of population or only a small upper class (compare the Aeneid). That's why we need to rely on reliable scholars to provide the necessary context and evaluation. What you are doing is comparable to putting a raw "percentage of blacks on death row" into an article on genetic predisposition to crime without commenting on the social and economic circumstances that lead to different crime rate, different enforcement, and different verdicts. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:42, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

I more or less completely agree with you. However the important point is, if we were able to correctly identify all of the above, there would be no controversy. But still the controversy does exist, and the legendary Punt is a part of it. People have heard about it and would like to know more, so to exclude any mention would be unhelpful. We therefore need to include what we do know. The article quotes specialists in the field, and does not draw conclusions, and it tries to give all the other available context, just as you suggest. However what is happening now is that certain editors are trying to suppress the "context" material, by e.g. removing all the scientific studies of the human remains from the article. Wdford (talk) 08:48, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Discipline in comments

This subject is controversial enough. If someone claims the article is OR, and you think it isn't and would like examples listed, then a simple "Please provide examples" will suffice. Language such as "Unbelievable! Another editor expresses a concern that "much of the article" included OR, but is unwilling (or unable) to point to specific items..." is simply unhelpful. I've removed it. The value of your comments is not measured by their length; be concise William M. Connolley (talk) 15:35, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Socks

We appear to have an affliction of socks: please see Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Muntuwandi. Assuming this doesn't get overturned on appeal, large portions of the talk here are going to get deleted. Much of the discussion will need to restart. Please ponder the proverb: "if you lie down with dogs, you get up with fleas" William M. Connolley (talk) 16:44, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand the technicality of it all, but I agree that a banned user is banned - and it was starting to look like Wapondaponda was confessing. Pity - he was quite constructive on this article. However if the discussion must restart, then it would help to have a firm direction towards constructive progress, rather than some vague references to unspecified OR and thus a lock-down on a crippled and useless article. You seem to be the admin in charge now - please could you take the lead? Wdford (talk) 18:32, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't see there is any hurry in all this. There may be further fall out over the socks, who knows. In the meantime, the section above can be used for discussion of the OR issues. If you feel these assertions of OR are too vague, I would urge you to ask for specific examples William M. Connolley (talk) 19:05, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

I asked for specific examples so I don't know why my comment was deleted. I also don't understand why the revert and lock were necessary. There's no edit war going on here. If there are complaints about the material in the article why not let us settle that on a case by case basis as we have been doing for months? The straw poll so far indicates that the participating editors are overwhelmingly in favor of unlocking the article and allowing all relevant and properly referenced material be allowed in the article. AncientObserver (talk) 19:35, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

The poll was started by a sock of an indef banned user. That is not good. There is plenty of time to talk here, I am in no hurry to unprotect this article William M. Connolley (talk) 21:06, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Didn't you agree to the poll? Does it matter who set it up? Perhaps Wapondaponda's vote shouldn't count but I don't think the whole poll should be invalidated. I'm all for talk but I don't see any signs that it is going anywhere. What more needs to be talked about before the article can be unlocked? AncientObserver (talk) 21:23, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

What makes you think I agreed to the poll? Yes. Lots William M. Connolley (talk) 21:27, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

BTW, the CU is now off at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Muntuwandi/Archive William M. Connolley (talk) 21:27, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Wapondaponda gave that impression. AncientObserver (talk) 22:23, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Wpp is the socked of a banned user. It is not surprising to find that his word is unreliable. Please don't assume I will correct all of his errors William M. Connolley (talk) 07:18, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Please William M. Connolley, I understand from the above that you believe there is still "lots" to talk about. Could you please give some indication what that is, so we can start talking about it? The main reason some of us think haste is necessary is because the current version of the article is badly damaged and useless - please take a look at at and see. Wdford (talk) 06:40, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

If you believe that, I suggest you discuss uncontroversial improvements that you believe would improve it. Probably small ones, to begin with William M. Connolley (talk) 07:18, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

The first problem is the lead section. This lead scopes the article as a subsection of Afrocentrism. The comments in the straw poll that addressed the issue leaned towards a broader scope, which was what existed prior to Dbachmann's attempt to narrow the scope once more. The first step in correcting the article is to correct the lead section so as to widen the scope. I propose that the original pre-Dbachmann wording be used as a starting point, and that we once again focus on getting that right first. Wdford (talk) 08:01, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

This makes sense also to me. The lead first. To widen it, as it was before Dbachmann's intervention.--Lusala lu ne Nkuka Luka (talk) 08:42, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

I think the first thing we need to do is restore the article to a more recent version and then we can work on improvements from there. 4 months of work has been unjustly reverted. There's no reason to even acknowledge the current version on display because improvements have been made on the article for months. We had already reached a consensus on the direction the article should take and even created a rough draft to get on track. AncientObserver (talk) 10:58, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Versions

Anyone interested is invited to indicate what their favourite version of the article is. You may, if you wish, briefly indicate why William M. Connolley (talk) 21:29, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

• I am in favor of the version "not limited to Afrocentrism". It covers the topic following its real historical development.--Lusala lu ne Nkuka Luka (talk) 22:26, 20 June 2009 (UTC) This version
• I'm in favor of restoring the article to this version because it is the last version of the page before Dbachmann's recent edits. AncientObserver (talk) 22:49, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
• I am in favor of a version that deletes ALL original research. Slrubenstein | Talk 02:15, 21 June 2009 (UTC) [Please replace the text within these brackets with a link to an actual version that you prefer - WMC]
• I am also in favor of a version that deletes ALL original research. I believe the best way to achieve this is to restore the last version of the page before Dbachmann's return, and then identify and correct each incidence of OR or other violation one by one, using discussion and consensus. This is better than re-inventing the wheel.Wdford (talk) 06:36, 21 June 2009 (UTC) this version please
• The current version is preferable. The version that some of the contributors above prefer ([4]) has a lot of problems. Two that jump out right away: Aeschylus' Persian Women is cited as an example of an ancient source that tells us the Egyptians were "black", with this source from 1851 as support; second, Josephus, Manilius, Strabo, and Arrian are cited without any secondary sources backing up the interpretation (well, one book is cited for Manilius, but no page # is given). This is essentially original research. --Akhilleus (talk) 15:07, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
• Supporting The current version. I don't see how it re-invents the wheel, and restoring a flawed version and then trying to get rid of the OR, etc. by consensus is a backwards way to do it. Dougweller (talk) 18:45, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
• Totally on board with the current version as above, as it is the only proposed version that does not have what appears to my trained-in-a-different-dicipline eye as very questionable sourcing. I suggest that since the current version has less information than the massive version (with the image galleries, which is what is the most glaring case of OR by synth) that supporters of the more massive version suggest one specific, well cited, balanced, NPOV change to the current version that would make it better. Hipocrite (talk) 20:31, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, for instance, Moreschi himself left some tags calling for some sections to be expanded. Do you think its acceptable to leave these indefinitely, or should those sections actually be expanded?Wdford (talk) 09:57, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Current version

While there are plenty of detractors for the previous version, the supporters for the current version haven't bothered to take a critical assessment of the current version. We will start with the lead sentence which states:

Controversy surrounding the race of ancient Egyptians is an integral topic in Afrocentric historiography, and an important issue for Afrocentrism since the early years of the 20th century.

As previously stated, we have a source from 1851 that has a whole chapter devoted the subject of the racial characteristics of the Ancient Egyptians. In addition there is this publication Egypt Land: Race and Nineteenth-Century American Egyptomania deals specifically with 19th century controversy over the race of the Egyptians. So it is factually incorrect, as stated in the current protected version, that the controversy began in the "early years of the 20th century". This is what happens when someone, just because of his administrative privileges believes that he has knowledge on content.

The second sentence states:

Today, the debate largely takes place outside the field of Egyptology.

Of course this is problematic as we have numerous mainstream publications by mainstream Egyptologists that deal with racial characteristics of the Ancient Egyptians.

• The Oxford History of Ancient Egypt by Ian Shaw (Egyptologist) of the University of Liverpool
• Encyclopedia of the Archaeology of Ancient Egypt by Kathryn Bard of Boston University.

In the face of such evidence, what good reasons are there to stand up for such inaccuracies. AncientObserver (talk) 21:51, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Good assessment Kalimpa and the answer to that question is none. I think the best thing to do is restore the article to a more recent version and from there we can talk about original research and other things that don't belong. So far this is the majority choice. AncientObserver (talk) 20:35, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Since K is a sock, I've removed the text. You can re-add it as your own if you choose to sponsor it William M. Connolley (talk) 21:22, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Very well then......Hopefully Wapondaponda can get his ban lifted and post in an honest fashion. AncientObserver (talk) 21:51, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

AncientObserver, I am not saying that the current version of the article is ideal, but it's a better place to start from than a version that has obvious OR. --Akhilleus (talk) 21:55, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Please point out the original research. I disagree with you. The current article is biased in favor of an Anti-Afrocentric perspective. It erroneously defines the controversy as an Afrocentric construction and reads more like an attempt to debunk Afrocentrism more so than reporting on a controversy. The more recent version given its theme is something we can build on and strip out the inessentials if necessary. It presents a broad and more accurate scope of the controversy and is full of reliable sources reporting on the various aspects of the controversy. AncientObserver (talk) 22:10, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

I pointed out the OR in the section above. --Akhilleus (talk) 23:37, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

OK, so you have a problem with the Classical Observers section. Don't you think it would be better to discuss these examples of alleged original research rather than revert 4 months of work to a wholly inadequate version? There is so much useful information in the recent version. I see no reason why the article needed to be reverted and locked in the first place. The reason given was edit warring but there was no edit warring here until User:Dbachmann showed up and started butchering the page. Let's unlock the article and discuss the material on the recent version in a civil manner. That is how we have been operating for months and that is how things get done. AncientObserver (talk) 00:03, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

I've got problems with the entire article. So do other editors. The version that's been reverted to has the virtue of being largely written by User:Moreschi, whom I trust to do good research, and it is well-cited. That's a fine starting point for further expansion, if such is necessary. The version that you prefer is poorly cited and has instances of OR that I spotted even on a casual reading of the article. --Akhilleus (talk) 00:10, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

I've got problems with the entire current version and so do other editors. So where does that leave us? So far we are in the majority. Many of us spent alot of time and energy contributing to this article so I would hope that other editors and Admins passing by this page would be more understanding. We're willing to work with other editors to improve this article but the sensible way to do this is to have open discussion and work towards a consensus not revert months of work and lock the article. AncientObserver (talk) 00:21, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

[sock rm - WMC] Bolongala (talk) 00:39, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Please read my post again. I did not say that the Aeschylus material is original research. I said that the use of Aeschylus is problematic, because the material is supported with a citation from 1851. Let's just say that views of Aeschylus have changed in the meantime, as have views of race/ethnicity/skin color. This article shouldn't be using a source from 1851 except as an indication of what people thought in the mid-19th century.

Attributing statements to ancient sources needs to be done with care. Ancient Greek texts are rarely transparent, and most Wikipedia editors are accessing them through translations anyway. Actually, I would wager that most Wikipedia editors are looking at out-of-context quotes from ancient authors in modern secondary sources. Any time a Wikipedia article says "Herodotus says X" or "Aeschylus says Y", a particular interpretation of an ancient author is being advanced (usually a debatable one), and those interpretations (unless cited to a reliable source) are potentially original research. Since the views attributed to the ancient figures here are debatable to say the least, if this stuff is to be in the article (it shouldn't be) interpretation needs to be attributed to a modern scholarly source. --Akhilleus (talk) 00:57, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

NOR prohibits SYNTH and sourced quotes taken out of context. Obvous violationss. Slrubenstein | Talk 02:37, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

The very fact that ancient Greeks are interpreted differently by different people today is exactly what makes it a controversy. Some editors have accused us of trying to settle the argument rather than focusing on the controversy, but in fact its the other way around. The bullet point on Herodotus clearly stated that a particular comment by Herodotus has been seriously misinterpreted, complete with references to modern scholarship - but Google that comment and see how many Afrocentric blogs quote it as the defining wisdom. This article is not about scientifically proving anything, it is about outlining the controversy itself. If you read further down that list of bullets, various ancient commentators give conflicting "evidence", and its also true that their definitions were probably different to ours. Hundred percent agreed. That certainly makes their evidence unreliable as far as determining the true race of the ancient Egyptians, but it also makes their evidence highly relevant in explaining why the controversy exists in the first place. I am happy to leave out the Aeschylus bullet, but some of the others (especially Herodotus) perfectly illustrate how come the controversy exists in the first place. Wdford (talk) 09:06, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

This article is about the "Ancient Egyptian race controversy." That's a horrible title, but presumably it refers to a controversy in the modern world. Including a section of "ancient evidence" makes it seem as if there was debate in the ancient world about the race of the Egyptians. Instead of talking about what the ancient sources say, this article should explain how ancient sources played a role in modern constructions of ancient Egyptian "race". --Akhilleus (talk) 12:13, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Agreed in full - that is exactly the intention. There was some difficulty in how to word the introduction to that section, for fear of WP:OR, so your suggested wording would be most welcome. Wdford (talk) 12:46, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Wdford! The best thing to do for people discussing here is to contribute to the article where they see they can put something. I liked the post by AncientObserver with sources back to the 19th century, well before the birth of "Afrocentrism".--Lusala lu ne Nkuka Luka (talk) 15:20, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

So where do things stand now? Have you made a decision yet William? I think we have made our case for this article being unlocked and returned to a recent version. AncientObserver (talk) 20:18, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Were we stand now is that a lot of people have problems with OR in the version you prefer. Your method of argument seems to be to keep saying I think we have made our case for this article being unlocked and returned to a recent version but not really paying any attention to the arguments. That won't work William M. Connolley (talk) 22:12, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

I have addressed the statements of several people who have made such comments as have others so how can you say that we are ignoring them? We've also pointed out problems with the current version. I think we have made a stronger case for the recent version because we have agreed to eliminate any original research and no logical case can be made for reverting all of the reliable information that is in the recent version which is not in the current version. What more needs to be discussed? AncientObserver (talk) 22:33, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Perhaps you should try to produce, say, a version of the lede that you think would be acceptable to all parties William M. Connolley (talk) 22:39, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

O.K. AncientObserver, try to produce something acceptable to all parties. And let's hope that whoever wants would participate in it. Very sad to see that Dbachmann has just vanished after provoking all this mess.--Lusala lu ne Nkuka Luka (talk) 22:51, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Draft discussion

In order for us to create a lead that will be acceptable to all parties we will first need to reach a consensus on what the lead should contain. I think the lead should contain the following elements.....

• The lead should state that the race of the Ancient Egyptians is a subject that has attracted controversy within academia and the broader society.
• The lead should should state that several scholars have made various inferences on the subject based on biological, cultural, artistic and linguistic data.
• The lead should state the modern mainstream view on the subject.

Here's a rough draft:

The Race of the ancient Egyptians is a subject that has attracted some controversy within mainstream academia and the broader society. The modern mainstream opinion is that Ancient Egypt was a Multiracial society and that the Ancient Egyptians cannot be grouped into racial categories such as Black and White per current terminology. Mainstream opinion also holds that Ancient Egypt was a Classical African Civilization. Some scholars disagree, and have made various contrary inferences from biological, cultural, artistic and linguistic data. AncientObserver (talk) 23:51, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

At least two problems with this. First, "multiracial"? By which source? And under which definition? Would the Egyptians have recognized any of these "races"? Secondly, what is a "Classical African Civilization"? The definition in the article is tautological and unsourced. Do we have any sources that even recognize this as a category with a proper name (as opposed to a simple descriptive term)? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 00:10, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

We can probably do away with the Classical African Civilization bit. I do think it should be noted that the scholarly consensus maintains that Ancient Egypt was an indigenous development (contrary to the Dynastic Race Theory and other claims). This is the current source for the statement about Ancient Egypt being a Multiracial or Mixed-Race society:

• General history of Africa, by G. Mokhtar, International Scientific Committee for the Drafting of a General History of Africa, Unesco

The mainstream opinion of the Egyptologists at the 1974 Cairo Symposium was that Ancient Egypt was a mixed-race society. I'm not familiar with the evidence presented for this but that was the conclusion of the majority. AncientObserver (talk) 00:33, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I like the "indigenous" much better than the "Classical" (but we still need a source). I probably would not write "indigenous African" (as in "they came from Harare") - if you need both qualifiers, "African indigenous" is less ambiguous (but somewhat redundant, in my opinion). Multi-racial and mixed-race are two very different things. Is that source online? What exactly does it say? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 06:29, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

The reference is also recorded in the book “Ancient Civilizations of Africa”, by Muhammad Jamal al-Din Mukhtar and G. Mokhtar. The book essentially reviews the proceedings of the Cairo Symposium, and the outcomes thereof. The entire conference dealt with the issue of the Race of the Ancient Egyptians, so many aspects were mentioned many times. The specific “quote” as per the lead of the article probably comes from the discussion recorded on pages 45 & 46. Various people gave their views in turn, most of which were along the lines of “mixed race” although not everyone used the same wording. On pg 46 the book says that two delegates – Diop and Obenga – backed the theory that the ancient Egyptians were Black, came from tropical Africa and spread into Egypt from the south. It then says that the conclusion of the experts who did not accept the theory (presumably the other eighteen-odd delegates, although it doesn’t specify) was that “ ... the basic population of Egypt settled there in Neolithic times, that it originated largely in the Sahara and that it comprised people from the north and from the south of the Sahara who were differentiated by their colour.” It was earlier agreed that the ancient Egyptians were not White either. Although Diop seemed to dominate the discussion, whenever anybody other than Diop or Obenga got a chance to speak they disagreed with Diop. The sentence in the lead section of our article is thus a precis of several pages of debate, but it is an accurate summary. I don’t own a personal copy of the book, so unfortunately its not easy for me to scan it quickly and find other references. Wdford (talk) 08:59, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I am happy with the bulk of Moreschi's lead, just not the limited scope centered on Afrocentrism. I would prefer the following:

The Race of the ancient Egyptians is a subject that has attracted some controversy within mainstream academia and within society generally.

The ancient Egyptians depicted themselves as having a different appearance to the other nations around them, but there is dispute about how accurate such depictions were meant to be.

Modern scholarly consensus is that the concept of "pure race" is incoherent; that applying modern notions of race to ancient Egypt is anachronistic; and that as far as skin colour is concerned, the ancient Egyptians were neither "black" nor "white" (as such terms are usually applied today). Some scholars disagree, and have made various contrary inferences from biological, cultural and linguistic data..

The issue is of particular sensitivity to Afrocentrists.

Wdford (talk) 11:04, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

The opening passage makes no sense and is therefore problematic as well as misrepresents the scholarly view of race:

1)What is the current scholarly view of race?

Nowhere is this ever referenced. Linking to a wikipedia article on race does not constitute the scientific view on race.

Below is a properly referenced current scientific view on race:

In the United States both scholars and the general public have been conditioned to viewing human races as natural and separate divisions within the human :species based on visible physical differences. With the vast expansion of scientific knowledge in this century, however, it has become clear that human :populations are not unambiguous, clearly demarcated, biologically distinct groups. Evidence from the analysis of genetics (e.g., DNA) indicates that most :physical variation, about 94%, lies within so-called racial groups. Conventional geographic "racial" groupings differ from one another only in about 6% of :their genes. This means that there is greater variation within "racial" groups than between them. In neighboring populations there is much overlapping of :genes and their phenotypic (physical) expressions. Throughout history whenever different groups have come into contact, they have interbred. The continued :sharing of genetic materials has maintained all of humankind as a single species.

Physical variations in any given trait tend to occur gradually rather than abruptly over geographic areas. And because physical traits are inherited :independently of one another, knowing the range of one trait does not predict the presence of others. For example, skin color varies largely from light in :the temperate areas in the north to dark in the tropical areas in the south; its intensity is not related to nose shape or hair texture. Dark skin may be :associated with frizzy or kinky hair or curly or wavy or straight hair, all of which are found among different indigenous peoples in tropical regions. These :facts render any attempt to establish lines of division among biological populations both arbitrary and subjective.

Historical research has shown that the idea of "race" has always carried more meanings than mere physical differences; indeed, physical variations in the :human species have no meaning except the social ones that humans put on them. Today scholars in many fields argue that "race" as it is understood in the :United States of America was a social mechanism invented during the 18th century to refer to those populations brought together in colonial America: the :English and other European settlers, the conquered Indian peoples, and those peoples of Africa brought in to provide slave labor.

From its inception, this modern concept of "race" was modeled after an ancient theorem of the Great Chain of Being, which posited natural categories on a :hierarchy established by God or nature. Thus "race" was a mode of classification linked specifically to peoples in the colonial situation. It subsumed a :growing ideology of inequality devised to rationalize European attitudes and treatment of the conquered and enslaved peoples. Proponents of slavery in :particular during the 19th century used "race" to justify the retention of slavery. The ideology magnified the differences among Europeans, Africans, and :Indians, established a rigid hierarchy of socially exclusive categories underscored and bolstered unequal rank and status differences, and provided the :rationalization that the inequality was natural or God-given. The different physical traits of African-Americans and Indians became markers or symbols of :their status differences.

http://www.aaanet.org/stmts/racepp.htm

2) The introduction then implies that the words black and white imply race?

How does using the words black or white define race? Black and white are references to the skin color of populations, which are a biological fact.

There is no evidence that modern science has claimed that "white" (light) skin or "black" (dark) skin do not exist, or that black skin is not the predominant feature found among Africans.

3) Likewise, it claims that the ancient Egyptians were in between black and white, but how is that unique?

Most Africans are somewhere between black and white, because the word black in reference to skin color has never meant literally coal black. In fact, the term white also does not mean literally lily white either and therefore it can be argued that no population is literally black or white. So how does this clarify anything about the features of the ancient Egyptians.

There is no proof that science views the ancient Egyptians as being of a single monolithic set of features that are unrelated to any surrounding population. Therefore, the idea that the ancient Egyptians as being "mixed race" were unrelated and had no similarities to surrounding populations is not supported either, as science views all populations as related to one another by degree or cline in terms of features.

4) The introduction then goes on to contradict itself by saying that the ancient Egyptians were of "mixed" race.

If the current scientific view is that there is no race, then how can any population be mixed race? Again, this does not reflect any modern scientific views on race. It implies that "black" skin or "white" skin somehow are characteristics of race, yet modern science does not hold such a view.

In that sense the introduction contradicts itself, because if race doesn't exist then there can be no mixed race.

5) And even with that, what is the definition of "mixed" race?

What "races" were mixed?

How are they identified?

How were they mixed?

Where did they originate?

Again, it is a contradictory statement if the modern scientific view is that races do not exist.

7) And even more importantly, if modern science no longer supports the idea of race, then how can it be anachronistic?

8) Technically the modern view of race says that all human populations vary in outward physical characteristics, but those characteristics do not define a "race".

Therefore, when talking of the ancient Egyptian population the question is not about "race" it is about the predominant physical characteristics of the population and how they have changed over time, which is a valid for every population on the planet and therefore cannot be anachronistic (meaning out of place or in the wrong time frame).

So to summarize, this opening statement only serves to show why and how "race" in ancient Egypt is controversial, because it is not based on science, but rather political and social agendas that have no basis in fact. In reality, there is no controversy over the "race" of the ancient Egyptians from a scientific perspective, because modern science no longer believes in "race".

Big-dynamo (talk) 00:33, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

These are all very good points. Big-Dynamo would you like to submit a draft for the lead? AncientObserver (talk) 01:19, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

I think something that summarizes the controversy as being a dispute over the modern representations of the physical characteristics of the ancient Egyptian population based on notions of the importance of "race" and certain "racial" characteristics in a social and political context would be a better start. The core focus of the debate being how the physical characteristics of this population are represented in academic and scholarly circles and whether they are based on historic racial agendas versus objective scientific observation. It is as much about the actual physical features as it is about accusations against the institutions of academia and science by African/African American scholars as being racist and whether such accusations are objective or biased in their own right. It is also a debate that in more recent times has focused on the quality and integrity of African scholarship on the subject and whether it qualifies as true science or mere social propaganda.

Big-dynamo (talk) 12:16, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Big-dynamo for being back. Since your ban many things, good and bad, happened here! Now, as AncientObserver said, can you write a draft combining those points of view you just exposed? We can then see if we take it as it is or modify it. Once more thanks!--Lusala lu ne Nkuka Luka (talk) 13:42, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

The role of artwork in determining "race"

Although I find the term "race" to be a bit loaded and outdated (especially considering that, with the exception of certain phenotypes, biological diversity is more pronounced within "racial" populations than outside them), I find this topic to be somewhat interesting in regards to discovering more about the original native peoples of Egypt. Is anyone here familiar with modern scholarly consensus (or at least a partial view of mainstream scholarship) on ancient Egyptian artwork and its value in determining the "race" of Egyptians?

I am familiar with the concept that the skin tones used in Egyptian art are quite useless for our modern understanding of how people really appeared. I say this in consideration of ancient Egyptians' similar attitudes shared with the Minoan civilization about representing the different sexes in arts (men shaded one color, females shaded another). However, is anyone here familiar with scholars' assessments of realistic three-dimensional artwork (i.e. busts, sculptures, statues, reliefs, etc.)? It would be interesting to hear what scholars have to say about these contemporary fifth-dynasty-era statues showing scribes (the upper crust of society) and if they hint at a fairly rich racial diversity:

• 
  A statue of an anonymous, seated scribe, dated to the Fifth dynasty of Egypt
• 
  The so-called Seated Scribe. Painted limestone, eyes inlaid with alabaster, quartz cornea and rock crystal iris set in copper, 4th of 5th dynasty of Egypt, 2600–2350 BC. From Saqqara.
• 
  Seated statue of an Egyptian scribe found in the Western cemetery at Giza; Fifth dynasty of Egypt
• 
  Scribe statue of Neferihi; Giza, 5th or 6th dynasty

One could point to one or the other, and say "black" or "white", while the one on the far right could be construed as downright "Asiatic". A thought to consider.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 12:11, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

There are other images which demonstrate this even more vividly. See e.g. http://wysinger.homestead.com/kemsit.jpg and http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Nofret_statue.jpg and http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:PalaceInlays-NubiansPhilistineAmoriteSyrianAndHittite-Compilation-MuseumOfFineArtsBoston.png etc. I don't have the references to hand, but Frank Yurco is quite outspoken on the subject - insert his name into a Google search with "egyptian art" etc and you should get there quickly. Wdford (talk) 12:50, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the links. I'll look into Yurco.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 13:00, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Shomarka Keita and A.J. Boyce wrote an article on the population history of the Ancient Egyptians in which they briefly commented on the use of artwork as an assessment of their biological characteristics. This is what they had to say:

Art objects are not generally used by biological anthropologists. They are suspect as data and their interpretation highly dependent on stereotyped thinking. However, because art has often been used to comment on the physiognomies of ancient Egyptians, a few remarks are in order. A review of literature and the sculpture indicates characteristics that also can be found in the Horn of (East) Africa (see, e.g., Petrie 1939; Drake 1987; Keita 1993). Old and Middle Kingdom statuary shows a range of characteristics; many, if not most, individuals depicted in the art have variations on the narrow-nosed, narrow-faced morphology also seen in various East Africans. This East African anatomy, once seen as being the result of a mixture of different "races," is better understood as being part of the range of indigenous African variation.

The descriptions and terms of ancient Greek writers have sometimes been used to comment on Egyptian origins. This is problematic since the ancient writers were not doing population biology. However, we can examine one issue. The Greeks called all groups south of Egypt "Ethiopians." Were the Egyptians more related to any of these "Ethiopians" than to the Greeks? As noted, cranial and limb studies have indicated greater similarity to Somalis, Kushites and Nubians, all "Ethiopians" in ancient Greek terms. - The Geographical Origins and Population Relationships of Early Ancient Egyptians

Zahi Hawass also made a good video about the subject which you can view here. I think artwork can give us some insight into what the Ancient Egyptians looked like however many Egyptologists agree that some of the colors used were symbolic such as the difference in skintone between genders. Some of the facial features on statues are also exaggerated and some of the paint on statues have been faded as is the case with The Seated Scribe shown above. I support the presence of the gallery in the article since art is one of the clues given to us by the Ancient Egyptians themselves. AncientObserver (talk) 00:32, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

I just want to say that i think a good deal of the most recent discussion has ben very constructive. I would only add this request, if possible - more discussion of the contexts that make the queston of race salient to some scholars at some times, but not others, or at other times. Perhaps the question was salient for one set of reasons in the 1820s, another set of reasons in the 1970s. Slrubenstein | Talk 04:27, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

I've said for some time that the Origins of the Debate section needs to be revised to better explain the development of the controversy. The mainstream scholarly consensus may be that race does not exist but not all scholars agree and many continue to use racial concepts such as forensic anthropologists who have been directly involved in igniting controversy related to the race of the Ancient Egyptians. AncientObserver (talk) 11:32, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

I think we should make a distinction between notions of "race" as being defined by outward physical characteristics versus racism which identifies certain characteristics as being "superior" to others. Hence the debate is whether any of the methods used to portray ancient Egyptians are based more on an agenda supporting notions of "racial" superiority among populations with certain physical characteristics versus objective analysis. Even if modern science no longer supports "race", some people could still be operating in support of certain "racial" agendas regarding how the physical characteristics of certain ancient populations are represented to the public.

Big-dynamo (talk) 12:15, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

We would have to identify very clearly which significant scholar views race in terms of physical appearance. As seems clear, it is not at all sure that ancient Egyptians equated physical appearance with race (if indeed they had a notion of race). (This is not surprising - Romans did not identify race with outward appearance, so we cannot assume other ancient peoples did). It seems to me that there are two different questions here: (1) did ancient Egyptians classify people according by race, and if so, how did they define race? and (2) using later definitions (18th century, 19th century, 20th century) of race, what races inhabited and governed ancient Egypt. I can imagine historians debating either or both of these questions, but they are different. Recent discussion seems to be quite aware of this distinction, I think it is critical to keep the distinction clear in the article. Slrubenstein | Talk 20:24, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

The Egyptians did distinguish people according to languages, characters and skin color. The Hymn to Aten says: You set every man in his place, you supply their needs; everyone has his food, his lifetime is counted. Their tongues differ in speech, their characters likewise; their skins are distinct, for you distinguished the people. Now, when it comes to the color of their skin, the Egyptians attributed to themselves only one color, kmt, meaning literally black people with determinative of people and the three traits indicating the plural. Scholars like Faulkner avoid translating it literally. They prefer to say Egyptians. But Egyptian is not a color! Others like Lichtheim translates it into Black land. But the determinative is that of people, not land! This kmt is found in the Hymn to Sesostris III.--Lusala lu ne Nkuka Luka (talk) 23:26, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi Lusala lu ne Nkuka Luka (that's a mouthful!). You make an interesting point, but I'd like to focus solely on visual artwork in this section. Perhaps you can start a new section here on the talk page about ancient Egyptian literature and how Egyptians classified themselves through the written word. On another note, I'd like to thank everyone here for showing this subject some attention! Now I think the best thing to do is to share cited passages from credible scholarly works on the matter to build some sort of scholarly consensus on how art can be used (or should not be used) to determine "race" in ancient Egypt.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 06:12, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I think that we must remember the purpose of the galleries must be to reflect the nature of the controversy itself. We should only be trying to show how ancient Egyptian artwork can be contradictory in that images for the same individual can vary in many ways and therefore used both for and against a certain set of features, even for the same individual. And given that it must be noted that usage of Egyptian artwork is controversial in some ways because of the selected images that some people use to portray ancient populations, by favoring those images that they feel reflect one set of features versus another. Ancient Egypt lasted over 3000 years with hundreds of thousands of artistic depictions of people that have survived in various states of preservation. No gallery can pretend to represent all the variations in one period of Egyptian art yet alone the entire span of dynastic Egyptian history. In reality ancient Egyptian art must be taken with a massive grain of salt in many cases as it is impossible to expect most imagery from ancient Egypt to represent pictorial accuracy as opposed to generic generalized representations. Big-dynamo (talk) 11:04, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, most are not only generic, but also idealistic in regards to depictions of deities and pharaohs. That should certainly be made clear.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 11:08, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Can we keep the article to objective questions?

Since the concepts of "black race" and "white race" are not scientific, there is little hope that this article can provide a useful answer to the question "were the Ancient Egyptians black?".
But perhaps the article can give some fundamented answers to more objective questions, such as

• range of skin color
• presence of body hair
• hair color
• skeletal features
• stature

etc. All the best, --Jorge Stolfi (talk) 05:04, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree Jorge and that is why I think the Anthropometric indicators section is important. It gives us insight into what experts have to say about the Ancient Egyptians' physical characteristics. Dbachmann tried to split it off and move it to a new article but it is integral to this topic. There are so many reliable sources in the recent version of this article. We can work on providing a better lead but ultimately a decision needs to be made on which version is going to be presented when the article gets unlocked. I see no justification for reverting 4 months of work. AncientObserver (talk) 06:58, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I think we are on the good track. Thank you Jorge.--Lusala lu ne Nkuka Luka (talk) 09:02, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I think that the objective status of the article should be to represent what makes the physical characteristics or "race" of the ancient Egyptians controversial. In this sense, it is not so much the actual data that is the problem, but rather the interperetation on one hand, or the various interpretations of the same data and which interpretations are considered the "current consensus". In all reality there is no one scholarly consensus on much of Egyptian history. There are various views and various studies and various scholars who have attempted to address this issue and all do not necessarily agree. Also, since modern science no longer speaks in terms of race, one must understand that the studies speak more about genetics and the overall physical characteristics of physical remains, which represent very technical scientific observations not simply boiled down into neat categories of "race". Case in point, Shomarka Keita, even while being an African American whose research supports the indigenous African features of ancient Egyptian populations, refuses to characterize those features by "race". This reflect the fact that modern science views all populations has having variations in different features, but with some populations having more occurrences of certain features over others. But even with that, many of these studies make it clear that the ancient Egyptian populations of various periods were clearly African and closely related to populations in and along the Nile Valley, such as Sudan and the Sahara. Likewise, there are also scholars who believed that the ancient Egyptians were migrants from the Levant. But those views are considered old archaic views based more on the "racial" politics of the 18th and 19th century than accurate science. Given that, the controversy becomes what is considered the "scholarly consensus" given that so many studies and so many scholars do support the African identity of ancient Egypt based on the analysis of physical remains? That and how much of a role does racism play in downplaying any scholarly or scientific research that points out the African identity and features of ancient Egyptian populations, in trying to maintain the view of ancient Egyptians being unlike any other population in Africa called "black". And what is the scholarly or scientific "consensus" on the range of features found in the ancient populations of Egypt and how they relate to modern populations? Statements by Zahi Hawass do not represent "scholarly" consensus. TV shows on National Geographic and History Channel are not "scholarly" consensus. Scholars and scientists write studies and they do not all agree and there isn't always consensus on many things concerning ancient Egypt. Therefore, to pretend that there is such a consensus is part of the controversy itself as well as the fact that within the scholarly community there is also debate over many issues surrounding the actual evidence found in ancient Egypt.

Not only is there no general consensus on the overall affinities of the ancient Egyptian population in a general sense, there is also no consensus on specific features of individual ancient Egyptians. What is the scholarly or scientific view of the features of King Tutankhamun? Again, the controversy itself starts within Egyptology itself because there is no one view of how Tutankhamun actually looked. There have been multiple reconstructions of King Tut's mummy by Zahi Hawass and various American broadcasting companies and they do not all look the same. In fact, Zahi Hawass himself has made contradictory statements about the features of King Tut and the accuracy of reconstructions. But Zahi Hawass is not "scholarly" consensus. And the History Channel and Discovery Channel are also not scholarly consensus. The late 18th dynasty is one of the most contentious and controversial periods of ancient Egyptian history because there is a lot about these ancient people that is not known. There are many forms of speculation and "controversy" about who Tut's parents were, who King Akhenaton's mother was and the ancestry of these families. There are questions and "controversies" about which mummies are which and which ones are properly identified and which ones are not. There are many famous figures for which there are no mummies available. There are also questions and "controversies" about some of the artwork from the late 18th dynasty. Much of this controversy is strictly within the halls of Egyptology itself and a lot of it is driven not necessarily by scholars directly but by "informed" laypeople who are passionate about Egyptian history. For example, what actual scholarly source supports the notion that Akhenaton had Marfan's syndrome, due to the way the Egyptians were portrayed during the Amarna period? Much of the actual work of scholars is dry and technical and not generally read by the public. Most information seen by the public is written by general historians or writers who simply summarize the works of scholars and sometimes introduce their own opinions on the issue. These do not necessarily represent "scholarly" consensus in any sense. Not to mention there are scholars who have been openly in conflict with various Egyptian authorities, like Zahi Hawass, which have generated their own controversies. Therefore to pretend that there is a single scholarly consensus on Ancient Egypt is erroneous and to pretend that within that within Egyptology that there aren't controversies surrounding the identity and physical characteristics of the ancient Egyptians is likewise erroneous. All of this has to be considered as part and parcel of the actual controversy discussed here, not simply the idea that Afrocentrics are the basis of it all. In fact, the Egyptians have now opened 2 DNA labs to try and extract the DNA of various 18th dynasty mummies in order to try and help identify the relationships and "family lineages" that can help identify other mummies. This makes it clear that there are a lot of questions that are unanswered, making a lot about the 18th dynasty not necessarily as cut and dry as some people want to pretend. Likewise, the fact of the DNA labs themselves is controversial as some feel it is unlikely to produce anything of value because of the age of the remains as well as the handling of the remains including the handling by Zahi Hawass himself. Again, all of this paints a vastly different picture of Egyptology as free from controversy surrounding the identity and physical characteristics of ancient Egyptian populations and the study thereof.

And because of all the above and the lack of consensus, much of the current debate over the identity of the ancient Egyptians involves those who believe the work of one set of European scholars versus those use the work of another set of European scholars. The point being that there are more scholars of European ancestry that have supported the African identity of the ancient Egyptians than African or "Afrocentric" scholars. Therefore, to pretend that this is simply a controversy started by and introduced by African scholars is incorrect. As an example, some of the scholars who went to Africa with Napoleon to "study" Egypt were some of the first "modern" scholars to make note of the ancient Egyptians as black Africans. In fact, some of the earliest arguments against slavery based on the idea that ancient civilizations were founded by blacks came not from blacks but white scholars referenced by abolitionists. This includes James Bruce, Count Volney and others and it was Champollion, the first to translate the hieroglyphs that was the first person to say that KMT was a reference to a black population and nation. And to this day, many white scholars have been openly supporting the African identity of ancient Egypt, making any attempt to claim it as solely "Afrocentric" argument of recent African authorship, strictly false. Big-dynamo (talk) 11:47, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

To follow on the above important comment: the BIG question is, how is "objective data" on "range of skin color, presence of body hair, hair color, skeletal features, stature" relevant to the topic, "race?" It is relevant only if a historian or other notable scholar deines race in such a way as to ake it relevant. Well, IF thee are siginificant views in notable sources that do claim that Egyptions were race(s) x (y z) based on these variables, of course we should include that view. Otherwise this so-called "objective evidence" is neither objective nor evidence and should not be mentioned." Above someone points out that Egyptions saw that people differed according to language and skin color. Okay, but this does not mean that they had a concept of race. Again, in significant scholars in notable sources use these facts to make such an argument, we can include that in the article. The recent talk however veres back to violating our NOR policy. What editors think are "objective facts" about Egyptians and skin color is simply not relevant to this article. What is important is verifiable and notable sources presenting significant views making claims about the race of ancient Egyptians or ancient Egyptians' views of race. Then we ask what these people mean by race, what they consider evidence.. Slrubenstein | Talk 14:17, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't think the purpose of the article is to decide what is "objective" scholarship on the issue. The article should focus on identifying that there is a controversy and how that manifests itself both within and without scholarly and scientific circles. To that extent it should be sufficient to note the history of anthropology and archeology which were based around concepts of "racial" distinctions and the superiority of certain "races" over others at one time. It should also discuss the various views of the features of ancient Egyptian populations both by European and non European scholars who openly addressed the issue in "racial" terms. As an example this would cover the views of Volney, Petrie and other scholars, where views on "race" were significant factors determining how they labeled ancient Egyptian populations. This should be followed by more recent scholarship and the various views represented therein and how this is reflected in "mainstream" opinion. However, this article cannot pretend to represent the consensus because it isn't clear that there is a consensus, given that many scholars have differing views on the subject. In that way, trying to establish consensus is to partake in the controversy itself. It should only present that there is a controversy, that it is not limited to Afrocentrics and that it still exists in many circles both within outside of scholarly and scientific circles. Bottom line, the fundamental controversy is one of skin color, whether or not science views skin color as defining "race" or not, with certain groups accusing mainstream scholarship and media of having a racist agenda in trying to downplay the presence of dark skin within the population of ancient Egypt and the article should simply reflect that.

Big-dynamo (talk) 01:23, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

The research of Biological anthropologists such as Shomarka Keita who hold the "no biological race" position are relevant to the article because they are giving a perspective on the controversy. In Keita's case his view is that race is not a biologically valid concept when applied to humans but that we can assess the Ancient Egyptians' physical characteristics and population affinity without using outdated models of racial classification. AncientObserver (talk) 15:17, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree. But one consequence of that research is that race is a social construction. As such, it may be constructed in some places but not others, it may be constructed at some times and not others, and when and where it is constructed, it may have different meanings and uses. My point was that "objective facts" like skin color, presnse of body hair, skeletal features etc. may be considered makers of race, socially constructed - or they may not be. Thus, simply to provide such "objective facts" as Jorge Stolfi suggests would be highly misleading. Let us start with the significant views from notable sources first. Then look at thiose views that use the social construction we call race. Then find out what they consider markers of race. Let's not start with a bunch of phenotypic traits that may or may not have anything to do with race. Slrubenstein | Talk 16:38, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Slrubenstein, I'd like you to take a look at this version of the article and tell us how you think the article can be improved in terms of the way it addresses the concept of race. AncientObserver (talk) 17:55, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

AncientObserver, the lead as it stands is a bit problematic. When it says some scholars disagree. They disagree to what? To the affirmation that ancient Egypt was a Classical African Civilization? or to the statement that The modern mainstream opinion is that the ancient Egyptians were a mixed race, being neither black nor white as per current terminology?--Lusala lu ne Nkuka Luka (talk) 22:11, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, the lead is problematic. I thought so myself even before the article got locked. What I wanted Slrubenstein to respond to specifically was the anthropometric section which provides sources from experts on the physical characteristics of the Ancient Egyptians. AncientObserver (talk) 22:22, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I think the version you direct me to i terrible. If race is not a biologically valid concept, scholars would not turn to biology, they would turn to race as a social construct instead. The version you direct me to simply pays lip service to the critique of race as biological by sneaking biology back in. Instead of race, biologists look at populations distinguished by gene frequencies. We have no data about ancient Egyptiians that allows us to reconstruct those. But the critique of race as a biologicval concept does open the door to loads of research on race as a social construct ... where is the research on that? Slrubenstein | Talk 00:36, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree that the version is horrible because it is stuck on the concept of whether "race" is valid versus simply reflecting the core issue: the controversy over the skin color of the ancient Egyptians. Modern science does not look at biological characteristics such as skin color as defining race. Therefore, when scientists and anthropologists study those characteristics in ancient populations they are not studying "race". But again, the purpose of the article isn't so much to prove that "race" is or is not valid and it isn't to prove whether the ancient Egyptians had dark skin or not. It should simply reflect that there is a controversy over the skin color of the ancient Egyptians that has been around at least since the European discovery of ancient Egypt 300 years ago. This controversy is less about the facts and more about how the facts are interpreted and represented in modern media, whether it is biological data, linguistic data, historical data or artistic data from ancient Egypt itself.

Big-dynamo (talk) 01:32, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

The no biological race position does not mean that biology is a useless tool in helping us to learn the physical characteristics of the Ancient Egyptians. Modern anthropologists who have addressed this subject have used various anthropometric studies to assess the Ancient Egyptians biological affinities to other populations. Keita for instance expresses little interest in race as a social construct because this varies by region, culture and time period.....

There is little interest in this review in "social race," since this varies from place to place. "Black" and "White" are differently defined in America than Panama or Brazil. The interest is in "real" affinities. Baldly asked, were the Egyptians in the main emigres to the Nile valley from outside of Africa in "Egypt's" earlier periods? Or were they merely another African population, differentiated from a common African ancestral group? Were the Egyptians natives of Africa with greater affinities to Nubians and other southerly peoples? Is there a difference between northern and southern Egyptians? Did this change? Do the early "Egyptians" share biological traits with "tropical" Africans which represent tropical adaptations, obtained via shared ancestry?

In this paper a representative sample of previous studies are reviewed which examine the "racial" or biological affinity of the ancient inhabitants of the northern Nile valley, specifically those called Egyptians. The majority of the studies employed crania, long believed to have traits useful as indicators of "race" or population biological affinity. These cranial studies will be divided for current purposes into three groups: morphological and morphotypological; metric/morphometric; and nonmetric. Other kinds of data are also reviewed; these include limb ratio studies, ABO blood group analyses, and dental studies. Of greatest interest are the overall external relationships of the early

Nile valley groups. - Studies and Comments on Ancient Egyptian Biological Relationships [5]

So long as there are different ways to define racial groups such as "Black" and "White" such categories are meaningless from a biological perspective. I think that rather than talk about the various social constructs we should have a section that discusses how the scholarly consensus on the racial classification of the Ancient Egyptians has evolved through the centuries which we have with the origins of the debate section which needs serious revision. AncientObserver (talk) 01:55, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

No matter what ways people use to lump together various biological characteristics, the issue of this controversy boils down to skin color. Everything else, including the history of "race" and ways "race" has been identified are all secondary to this core fact. This article is not trying to define what is "social race" versus "biological race" and whether any of them are valid or have a place in science. This article is also not trying to prove what biological characteristics were predominant in ancient Egypt nor is it trying to prove whether such studies are "racial" or not. All of that only bogs the article down in issues and discussions that already have pages elsewhere in wikipedia. Biological studies of ancient populations to understand their features and how they have changed over time does not and is not "race". However the study of the biological features of ancient Egyptian populations is important in that it does play a role in the controversy, because it is basically about determining the skin color of that ancient population. That does not mean that such studies are trying to prove "race" or that this article should be trying to prove "race" either. Likewise this is not about the "racial" views of the ancient Egyptians or the "racial" views of any ancient population. It is simply about the modern views of the skin color of the ancient Egyptians and whether such views are based on "racial" ideologies which are social and political in nature and not scientific.

Big-dynamo (talk) 02:28, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

I think physical characteristics and biogeographic origin would be more accurate than skin color. Those are the two issues that have been a source of controversy since the birth of Egyptology.

• What did the Ancient Egyptians look like (or what was their race)?
• From what geographic location did the architects of the Ancient Egyptian Civilization derive (or where did the ancestors of the Ancient Egyptians come from prior to creating Dynastic Civilization)? AncientObserver (talk) 02:39, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

You are not far from one another, Big-dynamo and AncientObserver. The article has to prove nothing. But to report about the diversity of opinions surrounding the so called "race of the ancient Egyptians". This includes skin color, geographic location, origin(s), language, relations... I was happy to see that Big-dynamo knows that even Jean-François Champollion had an opinion on that issue. I have the texts with me, unfortunately in French!--Lusala lu ne Nkuka Luka (talk) 06:31, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Skin color, other physical characteristics and geographic origins are all part and part of the actual controversy. The core of the controversy boiling down to how the skin color and other physical characteristics are identified, labeled and represented in various places and at various times throughout history and whether there has been a bias in representing these characteristics one way or another on the part of science and scholarship and other groups, including "Afrocentrics", based on social and political agendas concerning "race". There are many side issues that could be discussed, like what does "black" mean, what does "white" mean, what labels are appropriate, what is the difference between biological characteristics and "race" and so forth. But each of these should not be the core of this article. They can be referenced but trying to spend too much time on trying to cover every nook and cranny of ideas concerning "race", "racial" categories and labels and their role in modern science would only bog down the article even more. Suffice to say the topic is controversial whether it is about skin color, geographic origins or biological features (which includes skin color) and that is all that really needs to be pointed out. And it must be pointed out that it is controversial because of the role of ideas concerning "race" and "racism" in science in the years during and after the "discovery" of ancient Egypt by Europeans and the various ways these ideas have been challenged, discussed and debated every since.

Big-dynamo (talk) 12:52, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree that we don't need to go into too much detail about the concept of race itself but we should be able to talk about the various aspects of the controversy and what scholars have to say about them. There are definite improvements that can be made on the recent version but so far noone has made a detailed criticism of any other section but the one on the classical observers. Aside from writing a good lead that everyone can agree on what more do we have to discuss before the article can be unlocked? AncientObserver (talk) 16:09, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

We now seem to be mixing up two distinct things. First, a conrovery over the race of Egyptians. IF this topic merits an article (and i am not convinced it does) then the article should focus on debates over "race."There is a second issue, and that is, when was the Nile valley first settled, and what if any waves of migrations from different areas shaped it over time. For example, I know that some scholars once beieve that when Arabs conquored Egypt, Arabs also came to replace Egyptians as the dominant population. Today i think most schoalars reject this view, and believe that the conquest involved converting most Egyptians to Islam but not replacing them with lots of people from Arabia. Once can ask the same question about the impact of the conquest of Egypt by Alexander. I agree that these questins are important, but they do not belong in this article. First, these matters can be discussed without using the word "race." secondly I do not think there i any major mainstream controversy that merits its own article - all this can go int he article on Ancient Egypt, providing the mainstream view of historians and biological anthropologists. If IN THE PAST there have been colorful controversies, they do not belong in the same article. The article on evolution does not have a section on the Scopes Trial ... it is only of historical interest. Slrubenstein | Talk 18:11, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Slrubenstein, I don't agree with you that this subject does not deserve an article. It does because the race of ancient Egyptians is really controversial. Following documentaries by Basil Davidson on Africa and ancient Egypt in particular, one understands that Egyptologists have gone one way or another for different reasons linked somehow to the destiny of the Black people. I don't know, Slrubenstein, if you ever read the books of Jean-François Champollion. He says clearly that he wants his work to be a response about the origin of the ancient Egyptians and about their race. He reminds his readers that there is a polemic surrounding that subject. There is not a hot polemic about the populations of ancient Rome, Greece, China, Japon, etc. The literature on the subject of the race of the ancient Egyptians is very huge. And as such it deserves an article of its own. People would like to know about it. They will surely be happy to find that there is a space about the subject in Wikipedia and not only in yahoo, africamaat or toutankharton.--Lusala lu ne Nkuka Luka (talk) 23:21, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

This topic deserves an article because "race" and "racism" are controversial topics inextricably linked to the rise of European power and the associated development of anthropology, history and archeology as institutions of European imperialism over the last 500 years. Many text books from even 50 years ago will feature "race" as a fundamental aspect of human biology, history and cultural development and it only gets worse the further you go back. Trying to pretend that this is not a fact of the history of Western anthropology, much like the fact that some of the earliest thinkers like Voltaire and Hume were also racist, is simply non historical and revisionist. "Race" and "racism" were core and fundamental aspects of the study of Egyptology, anthropology and archaeology from its inception, because "race" and "racism" were core and fundamental aspects of European science and scholarship at that time and most of the years following. Therefore, the history of "race" and "racism" within Western scholarship are a fundamental part of this controversy and trying to paint scholars who are challenging the institutions of anthropology and science because of these historical "racist" tendencies as the source of the controversy is to actually participate in the controversy in defense of these institutions, which is why this article and many before it have been bogged down in edit wars. Simply stating that there is a controversy and presenting historical facts and opinions relating to it should be sufficient enough without trying to prove anything one way or another.

Big-dynamo (talk) 08:18, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Big-dynamo, your last sentence, according to me, has fixed the goal of the article. I don't know if someone still doubts about having such an article.--Lusala lu ne Nkuka Luka (talk) 10:49, 27 June 2009 (UTC)