Actually, the text here is perfectly appropriate here, but the problem is that it is duplicated elsewhere. It's actually a word-for-word version of something I wrote earlier for Afrocentrism which the no-name contributor has excerpted and placed in this article. There has been some discussion about relocating the "Egypt and black identity" section of Afrocentrism elsewhere. And until I (or someone else with appropriate sensibilities) decides how best to do that, I think it's probably best for now to more heavily edit that information, but to keep its essence in this piece. While the text I've inserted here addresses the issues I raised in Afrocentrism, it could stand more detail.
Perhaps, when the matter of the "Egypt and black identity" matter is settled, it may be appropriate to include even more information here, but worded somewhat differently. Again, I think the material is perfectly appropriate, but it might be best to wait a bit until the overlapping of information is settled and what (more) goes where can be sorted out. deeceevoice18:01, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
i've added a separate RfC section with a template for the various proposed versions. is there at least agreement on what the rough versions are? the edit history seemed to have many side issues mixed in with the reverts. would a proponent for each version mind adding the version (wikified) in the new section for people to comment? for the benefit of keeping the section pure RfC comment from outsiders, current editors please refrain from commenting/advocating there, but instead create a new section or add to this one to reply to any RfC comments or argue for your version. remember though: they're just comments (opinions), not argument from existing editors just itching to modify the article. thanks.SaltyPig19:00, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
One of the difficulties is that the political controversy re Nat Geo's reconstruction, which is pretty minor and of no lasting historical interest, overshadowed the actual issue of Tutankhamun's racial background. Perhaps it would be better to separate the two - put factual discussion of Tutankhaten's origins (well he was born Tutankhaten!) in a different section, to do with his family, and cut the political controversy bit to a minimum. That said, I still think any discussion of the factual aspects of origins should be kept short and sweet and non-speculative - a short para, not an essay. Rd23219:58, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
No real controversy here
There is no real controversy that needs settling here. As I've already stated (in the previously, IMO, improperly and precipitously archived discussion), some anonymous contributor began to insert copy I wrote some months back (in June, probably) for Afrocentrism. Personally, I think the subject matter of those edits is perfectly appropriate here, but some of it was out-of-date and virtually all of it is duplicated elsewhere -- which is precisely why I edited it out.
The real back-and-forth was with User:Petrograd, who had been engaging in a series of ad hominem attacks and who charged me with using the anonymous contributor as a sockpuppet. The accusation is typical of Petrograd's shrill attacks and over-the-top approach to editing this piece and to his/her comments on this page.
I inserted a photo of a close-up of the death mask of King Tut, which shows more detail, across from the National Geographic image. It was a perfectly reasonable insertion. This juxtaposition of images also appears in the Afrocentrism piece. Petrograd immediately deleted it and inserted a black-and-white shot of the death mask shot from another angle, but which showed no more detail and added nothing to the article -- and included a nasty edit note complaining about "Afrocentrism," blah, blah, blah. I have reverted Petrograd's mindless insertions of an inferior image, because I see it as an attempt at censorship.
I also inserted text about the noted Egyptologist Petrie and a short sentence or two regarding the facio-cranial characteristics of Tutankhamun, which have a direct bearing on the issue of "skin tone" -- which existed as a sub-topic before I began editing this piece. This, too, Petrograd continued to delete, with no substantive objections -- just more rantings about "Afrocentrism," etc., etc. The text I inserted is brief, to-the-point and on-point.
User:Petrograd, in typical over-the-top fashion, then flounced petulantly off to the RfC page. And here is where we are.
My earlier suggestion (which should have been one huge, honking clue to User:Petrograd that the anonymous contributor is not my sockpuppet) about leaving the article pretty much intact as is until the matter of "Egypt and black identity" in Afrocentrism is resolved is, I think, a reasonable one. But this inane back-and-forth and childish name-calling and nastiness and bytchiness on the part of User:Petrograd and others[1] should stop. deeceevoice20:31, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This tirade is absolute hypocrisy. Practicing name-calling while ridiculing it of others in the same breath.
: . . . But this inane back-and-forth and childish name-calling and nastiness and bytchiness . . .
So, clearly, words and logic have little effect on Deeceevoice. Discarding all the spiteful words, let's examine some substantive objections. I'll begin by posting the one Deecee consistently pretends does not exist:
Thank you for stating your opinion. (Petrograd 22:34, 6 September 2005 (UTC)) + What is "Pharlap"?? I searched around and all I could find was stuff about a race horse and a Korean convenience store ("Phar Lap"). Am I missing the reference? Please educate me. (Petrograd07:02, 7 September 2005 (UTC))[reply]
RfC
Withdraw RfC request, and consider investigating/branding User:Petrograd, a sockpuppet if ever there was one (accusing another here of using sockpuppets; ludicrous). i don't think i've ever agreed with Deeceevoice before, but the edit history supports that she was chilled out on this (big shocker!), and that compromise is just around the corner, assuming no Petrograd. SaltyPig21:04, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Please investigate me. You'll find that I am the most significant contributor to the Tutankhamun article of anyone posting here, including the contribution of personal research such as the Tours (now Exhibitions) section, much of the introduction, significant additions to the Discovery of Tutankhamun's Tomb, many of the photos and photocompilations (done personally), almost every source link past the "2005 controversy" section, and in general what is being resisted here -- an attempt to preserve the article's neutrality and veracity. (Petrograd21:46, 6 September 2005 (UTC))[reply]
helluva an accomplishment for someone whose first wikipedia edit was apparently 23 August2005. no sandbox. no worries. no floundering — just straight to talking like a wikipedia pro, uploading pics, etc. SaltyPig21:54, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
One doesn't have to be a total "Wikipedia pro" to know how to edit photos and contribute content. Not at all. The methods are fairly well laid out and not difficult to pick up. Insinuating that by knowing how to do these things one must have had an account already and be fairly well-seasoned is contrary to the concept of Wikipedia -- "the free encyclopedia" -- where anyone is supposed to be able to edit anything. So your comments do not reflect reality. (Petrograd22:32, 6 September 2005 (UTC))[reply]
please forgive me for stating the obvious, and doing so in a way that... what was that i did? i insinuated a reality "contrary to the concept of Wikipedia"! bwaahahahaha! obvious, ridiculous sockpuppet. no growth whatever reflected in your contribution history; you were a seasoned wikipedia guy when you started this account. SaltyPig23:27, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
"Sockpuppet" has apparently metamorphosed from a useful analogy into a negative propaganda buzzword. As such, though, it has very little meaning or weight. You'll find that the Sock puppet article even says there are "legitimate uses" for "sockpuppets," and further quotes the term's originator as stating: "There is no official policy against it."[2]
All, of course, considered quite apart from the fact that I am not one of them. There have been times I've edited a page without signing in, but I've never taken advantage of that anonymity to perpetrate devious ends.
The matter that should be under discussion here, however, is Tutankhamun. I'd prefer it if the photo Deecee re-inserts, the closeup of Tut's mask at Cairo Museum, were edited so as not to include an obvious link to "Return to Glory," which of course would not be permitted in an actual encyclopedia. I don't think there's anything unreasonable about my request. I do find some of the accompanying text to be of dubious intention, on occasion, but am willing to deal with that as a separate issue, later on. (Petrograd07:00, 7 September 2005 (UTC))[reply]
Petrograd circa 1987What you'd "prefer" isn't going to happen. No can do. When I inquired and obtained permission to use this photo, I specifically asked if I could be provided a "clean" digital copy of it without the superimposed copyright information. No dice. The photo was provided with the specific proviso that the copyright info remain superimposed. It's the name of the copyright holder (a Jewish professor, not some rabid, "radical Afrocentric cult") and the name of his website. And that's his way of protecting what's his. Get over it, Pharlap. You wanna deal with the content? Gee, you're welcome to try. But we both know you can't. Fact is fact, and all your ad nauseam, ad hominem sniping won't/can't change history. deeceevoice07:04, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I am the anonymous contributor and why I puin all those text, is because I use to think the Ancient Egyptians were white people and had nothing to do with the rest of Africa. That is until I began looking into Egypt and asking Black And White people and looking at the statues. I am an honest guy who just wants the truth. The truth that I have seen is that most people who say that the Egyptians are White look at the dynasty 19 and people who say they are black look at dynasty 1-4 12 17 and 18. So for me who thought they were White people I now believe they are Black. The evidence that most Blacks and some Whites put forth to prove the Blackness of Ancient Egypt is hard to ignore or refute. So I am sorry if I caused any problems but when see more proof that they were White than I will Edit the exact same way. Most Egyptologist that I spoke to say they were not Black or White but then show me evidence that they were actually Black. So from what I see I find it hard to believe that The Egyptians were white. All I want is the Truth. One thing that gets to me is why so many statues have their noses broken off and why in books most statues are shown from the sides and not from the front. This bothers me when all I want to do is learn about Egypt and I find stuff that make me believe that their is some sort of cover up. Which I would laugh in the face of any Black person who would say this to me. Now I see that their maybe something to it. Why do we see the same statues over and over again in the books and different ones like they have in Egypt. So in closing I am sorry for all the problems I have caused but I JUST WANT THE TRUTH. IF THEY ARE BLACK THAN THATS THE TRUTH. IF THEY ARE WHITE THAN THATS THE TRUTH. I JUST WANT TO LEARN ABOUT EGYPT. (unsigned post)
First of all, there's no need to be defensive, and there's no need to apologize. But let me explain something to you. I am the person who wrote the information you inserted. Using someone else's material without giving proper attribution is plagiarism. The information was obtained from an earlier permutation of the article Afrocentrism. I have absolutely no problem with the appropriate related information being inserted here -- at the appropriate time. However, because that material is already available on this website in another article, it wasn't appropriate here -- at least not at the present time. Got it?
Normally, it wouldn't be much of a problem. But there are issues between User:Petrograd, (a sockpuppet of User:Pharlap), and me which go way back. He tries to pick fights me wherever he goes and gets the azz whenever the point he's pushing is contradicted or his contributions are corrected. He doesn't know how to be civil with me. He goes ballistic. Pharlap has embarrassed himself so frequently in the past in his irrational tirades against me, that I guess he decided to disappear (at least temporarily) and come back as a sockpuppet and continue in his twisted mission. But his shrill, nasty modus operandi was immediately recognizable, and he gave himself away.
So, don't worry about it. You did nothing terribly wrong. In the future, though, when someone edits your contributions, pay attention to the remarks in the edit notes and on the discussion page and respond accordingly. Don't just simply reinsert the same information repetitively without trying to dialogue with others.
Also, in the future, please sign your contributions. Anonymous contributions cause confusion. You can't tell who's written what. If you don't want to join Wikipedia formally, fine. Just affix some kind of signature so we know where your post ends and another begins. Peace 2 u -- and welcome to Wikipedia. :) deeceevoice15:09, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and one last thing. You say you always assumed the ancient Egyptians were white. Yes, there're a lot of people in your shoes. But it seems that what you read was convincing enough that you wanted to insert it here. It's to your credit that you were open-minded enough to ascertain the truth. My hat's off to you, and I'm glad something I wrote made a difference. Again, peace. :) deeceevoice16:22, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I did not know that this information was already available some place else. I got most of the info off of Answers.com. I have been learning alot about Ancient Egypt and it just bothered me that people who agree that the Ancient Egyptians were at least for the most part Black, is automatically an Afrocentric and has some kind of agenda. When I first came to wikipedia I would read stuff that made me wonder why people got so worked up over Egypt. Now I know it has most to do with the U.S. debate because most people in Europe seem to be coming around to believing that The Egyptians were for the most part Black. What I want to know is why do so many of the statues are missing noses and lips? And why do most of the pictures of the statues are shown from the sides and not from the front? This is something that keeps coming up when I take a look into Ancient Egypt. Some people say it is erosion but that seems to easy a answer to me. Some Black people say it's to hide the Blackness of the statues but even this is hard to believe. I also want to say that the reconstrution of King Tuts face does not look anything like his death mask or of his busts. Also the only people who have that kind of head shape is Nilotic people and the are all dark skinned, so how come they made his skin so light?
Protected
I have protected this page because of an on going edit war. This is not an endorsement of a particular view but merely a forced cease fire in an ongoing edit war. Please keep in mind the tenets of wikilove and wikiquette in dealing with each other and please try to understand each others postions even if you cannot agree with it. Thanks. -JCarriker 20:00, September 6, 2005 (UTC)
They are all the same mask. (Hm-m-m. Maybe not. The ears look different -- don't they?) Anyway, depending on the lighting, certain features can be flattened or made to essentially disappear. I like the photo that is already there, because the way it is lit clearly shows the projection of the upper lip -- the very pronounced alveolar prognathism -- as well as Tut's full lips -- though I must say I love the last photo. It just doesn't show as much detail. Pharlap's complaints about the copyright notice are flimsy and downright ridiculous. It's the name of the copyright holder and his website -- nothing more. deeceevoice23:08, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
What the heck. I'm willing to compromise. I'll accept the third pic. It's gorgeous -- and the man is still obviously black. :p Thanks for taking the time to find acceptable alternatives. deeceevoice23:14, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
After doing some research, I concluded that there was only one mask found in the tomb. These pictures must be under different lighting conditions. From most of the pictures I've seen, the darker conditions are those under which the mask is displayed in the museum.
I suggest we display both images. If that's ok with you, deeceevoice, I'll ask JCarriker to make the change for us, bringing us one step closer to unlocking the page. Jim Apple16:26, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
