posted
What do you want to add (or remove) to the Wikipedia page about Ancient Egypt?
A lot of talks in some other threads is made about the wikipedia bias (or even the egyptology bias in general) but I'm curious to know what people would want to include in the Wikipedia's Ancient Egyptian page (lets start with this one) that is not already included? Or what would you want to remove from it? Both addition and removal must be backed by reliable sources of course (or lack of them for removal).
@ AmunRa - I am going to fake like this was your idea all along. I am also going to act as if there are not other pages that are more worthy of an update. So I am game. I will give the article a reading and spit out some ideas.
Although I do dont think this is the ideal article to edit based on the feedback already listed in the thread (basically you think you will be pigeon-holed as Afrocentric instead of Info-Centric.) Lets see what happens.
The ideas put forth from me will be based on Neutrality and analyzing what is on the current page and similar pages, IE: I dont see a need to go into biological affinity since it doesn't already exist on the page.
Looking at what is already there it seems pretty much well written. This is an Ancient EGYPT page and not a general nile valley page so it looks good. They even include Qustul.
What could be modified:
-Their idea on the Badari coming from the Western Desert. Source 12 comes from a book in the 1967. The Badari page itself is anorexic and has a source from the 1920's. There is much info that could be added but Gatto comes to mind and other recent data on Badari having affinities with a much wider spread culture. If they are going to mention migration they should mention the Sahara instead of keeping it vague...also mention Sudan and the Levant. Or they can leave it simple....IMO the article is good as it is in this respect. Other ancient iconography directly from West Africa could be included. Napta could get an honorable mention.
- Agriculture nor Animals - No dates. Again it could be kept vague because it links to specific pages with greater detail.
-TRADE They list Nubia but it doesn't link back to a page on Nubia....just the raw text.
-Language - Could be improved to include non Egyptian langues spoken INSIDE Egypt. Known Nilo-Saharan speakers. Known Cushitic speakers. Known names and People from the Western Desert that reconstruct back to Berber. New research that includes Chadic too may have been spoken there......waiting for publication to see if this was inside Egyptian Nubia, Sudanese Nubia or Western parts of either of their deserts. Ancient Egptian language is a Southern language - It has been hypothesized that the Northerners possibly spoke a different language prior to unification. Languages IN Egypt and the Egyptian language are two different ideas. The section could be expanded.
-Writing - Hieroglyphs date back to 3300BC. I would have to find a source but it precedes Sumerian....they likely know that.
That's pretty much it. The article is purposefully vague. I think its a good article though and many more anemic articles that could be expanded. Plus the page is "locked" I dont even know what that means yet. I mean why jump to Egypt when we can update and Ancient Nubia page? Well that is my input so far. Whatever specifics you are looking to change we can talk about that and source it...with new fresh sources.
Posts: 2463 | From: New Jersey USA | Registered: Dec 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
lol.. too much content on that edit.. But that list you have above is a good starting point. But the "locked" status maybe means the same old, same old.. dueling parties or even fake "page vandalism" by assorted moles, who then use that to justify a "call" for "protection." But hey, if you can do some good on some other page - more power to you.
-------------------- Note: I am not an "Egyptologist" as claimed by some still bitter, defeated, trolls creating fake profiles and posts elsewhere. Hapless losers, you still fail. My output of hard data debunking racist nonsense has actually INCREASED since you began.. Posts: 5905 | From: The Hammer | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
I want to test the waters. I dont think a locked page is a good page to do so. I will let Amun Ra lead that charge on that one. Also you can add that Egyptians traveled to Chad via the Abu Ballas Trail.
I know none of the specifics on editing pages and what you can and cannot do regarding Wikipedia sources and images. Another thing is why not just create a page on Wiki that does not exist?
For instance.... "Qustul" - No page exist for this and there is a lot more information from primary sources other than an incense burner.
Posts: 2463 | From: New Jersey USA | Registered: Dec 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Wiki is always wrong about everything yet it still is an important, even indispensible, tool. It is so important because it provides what is "known" about things as well as how they are interrelated. It's a convenient way to access what you need to know on any given subject.
The primary thing I dislike about this specific page is that it presents Egyptological beliefs as gospel for the early periods and the later periods. Egyptological beliefs are close enough to reality for the later periods but more importantly are well founded on extensive information. If I had any expertise in these later periods then I could spot where wiki is wrong but lacking this expertise I just know they are because they're always wrong.
What concerns me is that there is the Egyptologically inspired claim (implication) that the early periods are well documented as well. This is simply false and a tactic used by Egyptology to confront skeptics and non-believers. There is almost no basis at all for their understanding of these earlier periods other than what they themselves believe to be a "book of magic". It is illogical and impossible to understand people on the basis of a book of magic. They invent a "cultural context" that doesn't exist to support their belief that the people were highly superstitious. It's this "understanding" of a book of incantation that causes most Egyptologists to sound like mystics when they speak of the pyramid builders.
There are countless things that could be "corrected" but the "corrections" won't necessarily be closer to any ultimate truth.
In this case it might be better if they relied less heavily on Egyptology and more heavily on other sciences to write about times before 2000 BC. The article would look much different and would have fewer errors of fact.
Posts: 393 | From: NW Indiana, US of A | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by sam p: On reading this article more closely I would say it is one of the best wiki pages.
They seem to actually be improving as it pertains to accuracy.
This. Which leads me to ask amun ra...... Why choose this particular page to edit if there is no real lack of information or distortion?
Posts: 2463 | From: New Jersey USA | Registered: Dec 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Bump - Amun Ra. How do you think this article can be improved and why choose this article?
Posts: 2463 | From: New Jersey USA | Registered: Dec 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Don't worry beyoku far from me the idea of stealing the idea from you or being the ringleader of it.
Considering the discussions in other threads, I just wondered what people would want to change in the Ancient Egypt page. I also didn't see much to be changed on that particular page which is the main interest of this website.
Anybody, by anybody I mean you Beyoku, can start a discussion about any other articles if they want to.
Don't worry. It was your idea and you're the ringleader.
Posts: 2981 | Registered: Jan 2012
| IP: Logged |
posted
the zarahan complaint by was that the Egypt thread didn't elaborate enough on ancient Egypt, such things as not metnioning Nabta Playa which Toby Wilkenson mislabed "pharaoinic". The stone carving there might be a predecessor to dynastic Egypt but it's misleading to call it "pharonic" because that is a listed and particular royal lineage and type of culture
and when you go to the Egypt entry in wiki it shows links to the sections
History of Egypt
Ancient Egypt
Prehistoric (there a mention and link to the Nabta Playa page)
Nubia (with link to Nubia A group page)
^^^ IN these other entries there are the elaborations. I told zarahan stop being a drama queen and calling this stuff "dubious" and "laughable" (also Doug big time saying "Egyptology the profession of liars" -based off a TV show, Doug wake up the actual scholars who write recent articles and books are the ones advancing the Africanity of the AE's)
And compare wiki to the Encyclopedia Brittanica -and keep in mind an Encyclopedia is not a scientific journal, does not require that level of depth, and does not deal with very recent studies which are more speculative -many in their conclusion stating "more research is needed to verify results")
and if you go to one enty in wiki it tells you about the other pages where the further elaborations are
The base should be focused on letter writing campaigns against these mainstream TV specials or stuff like that French Tut reconstruction that don't show the Egyptians dark enough.
The scholars and wiki should be commended. It's the entertainment and history TV programs that haven't caught up.
Even the old Egyptologists, some who had dynastic race theories, even in the 19th century, the illustrators who to copied the wall paintings were showing the Egyptians as mainly medium-dark brown, such as in Book of Gates scenes
Posts: 42919 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
^^^ I don't know what you're on about Wilkinson but here's the exact quote from the book:
About Nabta playa: it is the earliest known monumental sculpture from Egypt. Here are to be found the origins of pharaonic stone carving—in the prehistoric Western Desert, among wandering cattle herders, a millennium and more before the beginning of the First Dynasty. Archaeologists have been forced to rethink their theories of Egypt’s origins.
Clearly it is the origins of pharaonic stone carving that are to be found at Nabta Playa and the prehistoric Western Desert.
Posts: 2981 | Registered: Jan 2012
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate: ^^^ I don't know what you're on about Wilkenson but here's the exact quote from the book:
About Nabta playa: it is the earliest known monumental sculpture from Egypt. Here are to be found the origins of pharaonic stone carving—in the prehistoric Western Desert, among wandering cattle herders, a millennium and more before the beginning of the First Dynasty. Archaeologists have been forced to rethink their theories of Egypt’s origins.
Clearly it is the origins of pharaonic stone carving that are to be found at Nabta Playa and the prehistoric Western Desert.
It's clear because a guy put the word "pharonic" in a book???
"I read it in a book therfore it's true" ???
What is pharonic about this stone carving ? -and where is the continuity into dynastic Egypt ??
Wilkenson is wrong to call it that
The right way to refer to it is stone carving that might be a predecessor to dynastic Egyptian stone carving
Posts: 42919 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: The right way to refer to it is stone carving that might be a predecessor to dynastic Egyptian stone carving
Predecessor and origins is the same thing. If you read the book, and other works, you will see there's a lot of other links between Nabta Playa and Ancient Egypt. So Wilkinson doesn't base his statement on only one line of evidence.
I know you like to post thing just to contradict people and generate discussions but let's be serious a bit.
Posts: 2981 | Registered: Jan 2012
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: The right way to refer to it is stone carving that might be a predecessor to dynastic Egyptian stone carving
Predecessor and origins is the same thing. If you read the book, and other works, you will see there's a lot of other links between Nabta Playa and Ancient Egypt. So Wilkinson doesn't base his statement on only one line of evidence.
I know you like to post thing just to contradict people and generate discussions but let's be serious a bit.
I'm being 100% serious
"pharonic" not proper to be applied to Nabta Playa
And predecessor and origin is not the same thing
Posts: 42919 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
Those in the know already know that I am getting at. I am looking not to create it myself but ES to create it with contributions from everybody.
So it's not rushed I am thinking of a one month timeline. Lets say a week to gather data. A week to gather data and I plan to Use this same outline.
If anyone can speak of better articles to create from scratch or existing ones to edit I say we put them all in a hat and vote using the vote function... Troll votes dont count.
AT Amun ra, understand I was speaking tongue and cheek. If you got my PM you will see exactly what I am trying to do and how it relates to the site. The Most Valuable player is going to be the site administrator Sammy. Lets see how he responds.
How does a Vote on 3 of 4 existing or original pages sound. Please reply on what you are interesting in creating or what you think needs editing.
Posts: 2463 | From: New Jersey USA | Registered: Dec 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by beyoku: Do NOT to let trolls disrupt the thread. DONT RESPOND TO TROLLS. lets get back on track. I am looking to create a new page that mirrors this:
Those in the know already know that I am getting at. I am looking not to create it myself but ES to create it with contributions from everybody.
So it's not rushed I am thinking of a one month timeline. Lets say a week to gather data. A week to gather data and I plan to Use this same outline.
If anyone can speak of better articles to create from scratch or existing ones to edit I say we put them all in a hat and vote using the vote function... Troll votes dont count.
AT Amun ra, understand I was speaking tongue and cheek. If you got my PM you will see exactly what I am trying to do and how it relates to the site. The Most Valuable player is going to be the site administrator Sammy. Lets see how he responds.
How does a Vote on 3 of 4 existing or original pages sound. Please reply on what you are interesting in creating or what you think needs editing.
So what do you want this page to be about, beyoku?
Posts: 7069 | From: Fallbrook, CA | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Come on truthcentric. You are in the know. After glancing at the Bell Beaker page you dont know of any African similarities? Posts: 2463 | From: New Jersey USA | Registered: Dec 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by beyoku: Come on truthcentric. You are in the know. After glancing at the Bell Beaker page you dont know of any African similarities?
Sorry, I only skimmed it. But what do you mean by "African similarities"? What would this European development have anything to do with Africa? Are you suggesting the Bell Beaker culture somehow derived from Africa (even though the Wikipedia article mentions no such connections)?
Posts: 7069 | From: Fallbrook, CA | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Still looking for input on possible pages to create or modify. Where did the enthusiasm go? So far we have the Ancient Egypt page and the African version of the Bell Beaker page.
Posts: 2463 | From: New Jersey USA | Registered: Dec 2007
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic