Talk:Great Sphinx of Giza/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Please weigh in below. Thanks.

• Move it. The information does not belong under "Alternative theories," because it isn't an alternative theory. There has been no "theory" presented in the article to which the "Negroid" appearance of the sphinx is an "alternative." Further, the information does not logically fall within the realm of information set out by the lead paragraph; it is not an unscientific or crackpot notion and is supported by observation and scholarly (forensic) examination. The information clearly belongs either under "Description" or "Origin and identity." deeceevoice 10:35, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
• Comment It is an alternative to the idea that the sphinx represents Khafra (or other candidate pharaoh), no? 192.75.48.150 13:45, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

That is about specific identity, a particular person. Further, mainstream scholars disagree about the identity of the sphinx, with the identity of the person it represents still much speculated about, so the observation that the sphinx is a representation of a black person is not necessarily contradictory to mainstream scholarship. Again, this is about ethnicity, not a particular/specific identity -- an issue which is far from settled. deeceevoice 15:53, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Alright. The impression I was getting from "Origin and Identity" (as it stands at the time of writing) is that, although this is debated as you say, nevertheless the candidates presented are in fact pharaohs. The impression I was getting from the Ethnicity section (as it stands) was that the candidate pharaohs were not negroid ("...lacking in the face of Khafra"). As to whether this is about ethnicity or identity, it looks like Domingo is making a claim about identity (particular person) and not ethnicity ("Domingo... determined that the Sphinx represented a person other than Khafra.") Now I don't claim to know anything about egyptology. So maybe the sections in question are incomplete, or just wrong, or maybe I have misread them. If that is so perhaps they could be changed to be more complete or correct or clear. -Dan 192.75.48.150 19:14, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I have edited the excerpt back to the way it was, omitting the reference to Khafra. The reference to Khafra was not included originally, because it is misleading and extraneous to the point of ethnicity. The questions regarding the identity of the sphinx are already addressed in the text. The reference to Khafra in the quote is misleading because, presented as it is, out of context, it leads the reader to conclude that Khafra was not black, when he was. Even Petrie, the Father of Egyptology, makes this point. Petrie simply notes that Khafra was Oromo (read a "Cushitic black from the African Horn"), rather than an Equatorial or Nilotic type, which is what Domingo is referring to when he uses the term "Negroid" -- as in in conformity with the classic "Negroid" phenotype. deeceevoice 08:42, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

• Keep where it is. "Alternative theory" does not mean crack-pot, it just means it is not mainstream. Clearly that is the case, you have provided zero evidence this is a mainstream theory accepted by mainstream Egyptologists. -- Stbalbach 15:26, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

And who says it isn't mainstream? The noted forensics expert who examined the sphinx and took detailed measurements is certainly mainstream. What credible, mainstream scholar/source has anyone produced -- though I've repeatedly asked for one -- who says the image is not that of a black person? The fact is you have provided zero evidence the scholarship is not mainstream. And, again, the information under "Ethnicity" clearly does not fit within the framework of language of the section titled "Alternative theories." deeceevoice 15:53, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

See below, Stbalbach. The section clearly denotes the theories it presents as "crackpot." — ዮም | (Yom) | Talk • contribs • Ethiopia 08:28, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Hmm can you point out where in the article is says crackpot? I looked and couldn't find it. I did see general writers. -- Stbalbach 15:33, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

You can use a different term if you want, but that's my interpretation of non-specialists, mystics, pseudohistorians, pseudoarchaeologists and general writers that Egyptologists and the wider scientific community largely ignore. It's obviously presenting their theories as crackpot (which they are). — ዮም | (Yom) | Talk • contribs • Ethiopia 16:59, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

• Keep I have to agree, reading through the talk page and looking at the section, if the only supporters are non-mainstream sources, then it belongs under a heading for non-mainstream supported theories. And it is not incumbent on anyone else to prove a negative. You have to provide evidence that it is mainstream, not the other way around. The forensic expert does not qualify by any stretch of the imagination. CaptainManacles 17:55, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

One of the most prominent noted forensics artists in the nation is considered on the fringe? deeceevoice 19:56, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I didn't say fridge, but no, a police sketch artist does not qualify as an egyptologist. You should be able to at least find one person with relevent background who agrees with him. CaptainManacles 09:13, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

A couple of thing that always strike me about this article: a large fraction of the "evidence" that so-and-so was "black" comes from either a french novelist musings, a dentist's letter to the editor, and a new york cop. Another is that though we bend over backwards to let in borderline sources (like the dentist and police officer hobbyist) that support afrocentrist claims, other pieces of info -- crackpot and mainstream -- often face an uphill battle. this damages the article. as some editors have said recently, the only claims in here are afro's. Justforasecond 00:23, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

"... bending over backwards to let in"? Don't make me laugh. You and other editors have edit warred about the very information you now claim you've worked to accommodate. See my comments under Further Comment below. deeceevoice 13:59, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

• Keep, or better yet, Merge with duplicate material in Controversy_over_racial_characteristics_of_Ancient_Egyptians

-- That Guy, From That Show! 07:58, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

This has already been discussed at length. This is separate information, and as it is presented in the article, there are no extrapolations made whatsoever with regard to the ethnicity of the ancient Egyptians. This discrete information has absolutely nothing to do with that article; it is simply and solely about the description of the sphinx and nothing more and, as such, it is perfectly appropriate here. deeceevoice 08:34, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

This was never resolved. No one talks about the ethnicity of the Sphinx outside of the context of the Ethnicity of the Ancient Egyptians. No one just says "the Sphinx represents a black man" without saying anything more about it, or for some other reason. Your cherry picking and removing anything that is inconvenient. -- Stbalbach 15:31, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

"No one? Uh, this article very clearly discusses it outside that context. Domingo clearly discusses it outside that context. Even Schoch discusses it outside that context. Please don't insult our intelligence or level unfounded charges of "cherry picking." It is perfectly possibly to discuss the ethnicity of a single human face on a single monument/work of art without discussing the ethnicity of the civilization that produced it -- just as it is perfectly normal and common to discuss the faces on Mt. Rushmore, the Venus de Milo, or Michelangelo's David without making assumptions that all Americans are white males, all Italian women are without arms, or all Italians are naked and male. deeceevoice 15:38, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

• Move to Controversy_over_racial_characteristics_of_Ancient_Egyptians Justforasecond 00:28, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
• Move to another section. The identity of the sphinx isn't the focus of the section, so it cannot be said that it's an alternative theory on who it represents. From the section, it's clear that it's not an "alternative theory" that the statue has pronounced prognathism. If need be, it can be given its own section separate from "Origin and Identity," since the section isn't really debating the origins of the sphinx or whom it is supposed to represent. Note that Merging or Moving to the Controversy article is not really an option anymore. The article is undergoing a major rehaul and is focusing more on the historical debate rather than whether or not the Ancient Egyptians were "white"/"black," so the material wouldn't really fit. Also note that the Alternative theories section does imply crackpot, contrary to what Stbalbach said. I quote to you the introduction to the three subheaders of "Alternative theories" (the first postulating an earlier construction by a few hundred years, and the second by crackpots like Graham Hancock):

In common with many famous constructions of remote antiquity, the Great Sphinx has over the years been the subject of numerous speculative theories and assertions by non-specialists, mystics, pseudohistorians, pseudoarchaeologists and general writers. These alternative theories of the origin, purpose and history of the monument typically invoke a wide array of sources and associations, such as neighboring cultures, astrology, lost continents and civilizations (e.g. Atlantis), numerology, mythology and other esoteric subjects. Egyptologists and the wider scientific community largely ignore such claims; however, on occasion they are drawn into public debate when a claim purports to rely upon some novel or re-interpreted data from an academic field of study.

ዮም | (Yom) | Talk • contribs • Ethiopia 08:22, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

• This appears to be partly a reply to me. The focus of the section is a theory about ethnicity. But Domingo makes a claim about identity, rather than ethnicity. (As quoted in the article. If this is not correct, then can we change the quote?) Furthermore this theory supposes that the sphinx represents a racial type and also supposes that Khafra was not of that type. (Again, if this is not correct, then can we change that section accordingly?) This contradicts modern scholarship, which believes that the sphinx represents either Khafra or nearby pharaoh. (If not, then can we change the Origins section?) -Dan 72.137.20.109 02:52, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I didn't write that section, but perhaps it bears reexamination/expanding upon. Domingo wrote: "'If the ancient Egyptians were skilled technicians and capable of duplicating images then these two works cannot represent the same individual.' He noted, for example, that the Sphinx face has a distinctive 'African,' 'Nubian' or 'Negroid' aspect lacking in that of Khafre." deeceevoice 06:14, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

• Further comment: I hadn't really read the other alternative sections. Now that I have, I see the same person (Schoch) also makes an appearance in the water erosion section. If the point of all this is that the ethnicity thing is more credible than the water erosion thing, then perhaps he is not a good person to cite as support for the ethnicity theory. Can we find someone else? -Dan 72.137.20.109 02:52, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

It's not necessary to use Schoch as a source. He was edited out, but then reinserted by some of the same people who insist on keeping it in this section, in an effort to make the ethnicity info seem like a crackpot theory, by the same people who've been objecting to photographs showing the Sphinx's prognathism. deeceevoice 04:38, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Schoch was one of the more reputable sources. He is a geologist, so not really trained in the field, but the orthodontist and police detective have even less credibility. Justforasecond 04:47, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

You are hardly qualified to judge that neither has credibility. Care to tell us how it is that Sheldon Peck, of Harvard,[1], and Frank Domingo[2], [3] are somehow not to be believed and that their findings merit inclusion in a section treating crackpot notions? They're about as mainstream as it gets. Further, giving no weight to the learned judgments of people because they are not strict Egyptologists is absurd. Egyptology has long been an interdisciplinary endeavor, particularly with the development of specialized disciplines and the advent of modern/computerized technology such as that employed by Domingo. Beyond general archaeologists, there are commonly forensic anthropologists, geologists, experts in medical imaging technology, etc., involved in efforts to examine and interpret past civilizations. And, finally, despite Schoch's own theories regarding the Sphinx, he is a Boston University professor and, presumably, of sound mind. He is as capable as any to quote from the work of a professional such as Domingo. The findings are, after all, not his own and widely reported elsewhere.deeceevoice 06:00, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

An orthodontist who wrote a letter to the editor and New York detective just don't have a lot of credibility. Shoch himself is a little off the wall. I perused his website, he talks about seeing ghosts while in Peru. Justforasecond 15:38, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

• Move to "Origins" section. As an outside and uninterested party, it seems to me the description of ethnicity belongs as a third level (===) subsection of "Origins and identity". The question of who has identified the Sphinx as "Negroid" is much more closely related to the question of who is identifying it as Khafra than it is to who thinks it is part of a star map. So long as the section is carefully sourced (as it appears to be), we are talking about people's observations, not a crackpot theory -- neither quote appears to be trying to push a particular point of view. — Catherine\^talk 14:43, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Keep it in the "Alternative Theories" section, delete it or move it to an article about pseudoscience

• "Race" can't be determined by measuring the facial angle, jaw structure or prognathism, these are 19th century methods, today regarded as inadequate and considered outdated pseudoscience. See "Phrenology and Race in Nineteenth-Century Britain", Faculty of History, Cambridge University [4], see American Anthropological Association Statement on "Race" [5] and see the United Nation Symposium: "The peopling of Ancient Egypt", comments about craniometry:

Page 3: "The methods themselves were being called in question and it was now agreed that craniometry did not meet the requirements of such research"

Page 12: ""Negro" was not a clearly defined concept today as far as physical anthropologists were concerned. A skeleton did not provide evidence of skin color, only tissues and the skin itself were important in that respect."

Page 27/28: "Professor Diop mentioned that racial type could not at present be established on the basis of craniometric evidence alone but that conclusions could be arrived at if this evidence were combined with osteological data. Professor Shinnie replied that the American specialists whom he had consulted while preparing for the Symposium had told him that skeletal studies had some importance but that they did not in themselves provide a basis for determining race, and that the criteria regarded as adequate by Professor Diop were no longer considered to be so by American specialists."

• Even IF these kind of skeletal studies would be a valid tool to determine someones "race", you still can't analyse a skull structure without a skull and you can't measure a facial angle without a nose. It's more than ridiculous to make up a nose, (as it was done by Domingo [6]) then assign it to a monument, claiming that the findings are based on "exact measurements", when in fact, they were based on nothing but arbitrary assumptions. It's just as ridiculous and most amateurish to diagnose prognathism without x-rays.

If there needs to be a compromise, I suggest to include only this one sentence into the identity section:

"Frank Domingo, a senior forensics artist with the New York City Police Department who had traveled to Egypt to take measurements of the Sphinx's head, generated a model of the head of the Sphinx both by hand and utilizing computer graphics, and determined that the Sphinx represented a person other than Khafra."

CoYep 14:55, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. Justforasecond 14:58, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

So, now the dsicussion has degenerated into CoYep presuming to tell one of the most prominent forensics artists in the field how to do his work, incorrectly assuming that "you can't measure a facial angle without a nose." Absurd. Of course one can measure a facial angle without a nose. Prognathous (adj.) is defined as "having the jaws projecting beyond the upper part of the face" (Merrian-Webster). And that means from the plain of the forehead/the bridge of the nose. (Duh.) Let's get back to the real discussion -- about where to place the perfectly valid information regarding the ethnicity of the face of the Giza sphinx. deeceevoice 15:19, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

"Of course one can measure a facial angle without a nose." Deeceevoice

Yes, and the reason why Domingo made up a nose for the Sphinx before he measured the "exact" facial angle was merely because he had some time to kill? Anyway, this is a fruitless discussion, since the method is considered outdated and inadequate to determine someones race, and therefore an irrelevant "Alternative Theory". CoYep 15:34, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

And what's your source? If you're talking about his schematic, it was a template -- and it bears absolutely no resemblance whatsoever to the Giza sphinx. If anything, the template is extremely European/Caucasian, which tells you the point at which Domingo started before he made his actual measurements and calculations. That his findings deviated so far from his starting point should tell you something. Again, you, CoYep, an untrained layperson, are abysmally unqualified to judge the competence of a widely respected professional/specialist in the field. My God, man. You don't even seem to know the difference between commonly and widely used methodologies in forensic criminology and forensic archaeology and phrenology! (shaking head) It's quite clear there's absolutely no point in continuing with this discussion thread. deeceevoice 15:42, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Deeceevoice complaining about abysmally untrained laypeople....what will we see next? A letter to the editor from an orthodontist used as indisputable proof of the ethnicity of a rock? ;) Justforasecond 18:11, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Oh okay, now that you found out that Domingos reconstruction [7] looks "too European" to you, you discard the whole thing? Works for me, as I said earlier: Just delete it. And about me being "abysmally unqualified" - I never stated that I am a specialist, but I cited several, as you can read above. But probably you will now call the American Anthropological Association, participants of the United Nation Symposium and professors of the Cambridge University as "abysmally unqualified" as well ... CoYep 15:56, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Great work, CoYep! This is damning evidence of the "Prognathous theory" and valid sourced material for the article. -- Stbalbach 15:48, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Oh, so CoYep's uninformed original research discredits a professional of Domingo's stature? This exchange should be extremely instructive for those who come to this space with an open mind. deeceevoice 15:52, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Deeceevoice, I have an open mind and think multiple POV's should be represented in the article, including the position of the American Anthropological Association and the United Nations. Frank Domingo of the NYPD is a great favorite of yours, but don't you think we should also include more widely held scholarly views as well? -- Stbalbach 16:20, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

See my response regarding the total irrelevance of the AAA statement to this matter under the section devoted to straw poll 2. deeceevoice 10:59, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

CoYep and Stbalbach, I don't think you are listening carefully enough to the evidence deeceevoice is presenting. deecee, while I can see your frustration, I would like to see you rein in the personal attacks -- comments like "absurd" and "duh" don't really help make progress towards an NPOV compromise.

CoYep suggested a version above (at 14:55); deecee, what do you feel needs to be added or subtracted from that proposal?

Is the current paragraph in the article your suggested text, deecee? If so, CoYep, what do you feel would need to be changed?

CoYep, Stbalbach, what are your specific objections to having this section in the "Origins and Identity" section? Can you come up with a succinct cited summary of the sources you quoted above, to include in the section if it were to be moved outside the Alt Theories section? ("However, the use of craniometry and skeletal measurements has been found....", something along those lines?)

I don't really want to take sides on this issue; my common sense tells me this ought to go under "Origins" but the important thing is that all of you use some civil discussion to come to an agreement, and remember the Wikipedia:Five pillars that apply here. — Catherine\^talk 16:33, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Catherine -- here's the thing: if all we have are a letter to the editor from an orthodontist, a side remark from a a police officer (he wasn't evaluating the race of the Sphinx(!)), an 18th century novelist and a new-age geologist ridiculued by his contemporaries and who sees ghosts, we don't have a mainstream theory. The info should probably be stricken altogether, but if it must be here, it fits under Alt Theories or in another article altogether. Justforasecond 16:46, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Justforasecond, do not misrepresent the sources presented here. Where does he say here that he is a new-ager? No where. We talked about this in the controversy article, and you accepted that you made a mistake in reading the page, because he was refuting the new agers, not supporting them. You claimed that he had "an encounter with "phantasms" in Peru," but you didn't provide a source, so I can't evaluate that. — ዮም | (Yom) | Talk • contribs • Ethiopia 16:57, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm not misrepresenting anyone. The orthodontist wrote a letter to the editor. Domingo is a cop, not an anthropologist. Shoch, on his trip to Peru, reported seeing ghosts near his campsite. Here is a UFO website advertising for Shoch: "Space's Final Frontiers editor, Mars geologist Jim Erjavec, for an unusual evening of science, theory and the unusual when we talk with Dr. Shoch about the Voices of the Rocks."[8] Justforasecond 18:11, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Schoch is not an egyptologist and his views are generally not accepted as mainstream. -- Stbalbach 17:44, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Catherine, I already explained my rationals in detail in my earlier post. And Schoch's alternative theories will be quickly discarded as irrelevant anyway - as soon as certain editors realize that Schoch claims that ancient Egypt was not build by Africans but by a "lost master culture" which were a "Post-Ice Age Diaspora from the Orient" and who "brought with them their knowledge and form of government".[9] CoYep 18:37, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

• Bad survey - I might even suggest withdrawing the survey. If you cannot reach agreement, as per above, then I hope at least you can decide on what the survey is about. Perhaps let it lie a week or so, then re-list a survey pointing to specific versions. People can make sub-sections of a talk page, or sub-pages of the article, or sub-pages of their user page. Whatever is necessary to make it perfectly clear what the competing proposals for the text of the relevant sections are. At this time, the question is muddled and it sort of sounds like dubious sources are actually being added in order to discredit. I don't think I will be voting at this time. -Dan 192.75.48.150 20:22, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

• Why - The article on Stonehenge, doesn't mention anything about the builders being caucasoids. The article on the Great Wall of China doesn't mention the builders being mongoloids. The only similar article I know of that has something like this is the one on Great Zimbabwe. The ethinicity of the Sphinx really should only go into the article if it has some social or political impact (like the ethinicity of the builders of Great Zimbabwe did), and if it did have a political or social impact, this should also be dealt with in the article. I'm not saying it didn't have an impact, I'm just saying the article should focus more on the impact, than on proving what race the sphinx is (which will always be debatable.)Altarbo 21:37, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Why? Because it is a prominent feature of the object. It is descriptive, as much as the fact that it has the body of a lion and a human head, as much as its height, the stone from which it is constructed. You are confusing, perhaps deliberately, the ethnicity of those who built the object with the description of the object itself. With any archaeological artifact, it is important to describe the person it represents. It gives us clues as to how people saw themselves, what they knew of their world, possibly even who they might have been. At the very least, it raises tantalizing questions. Why? Because it is something that is observable and known; it is information/knowledge. Just as one of Tut's famous walking canes is described with representations of a Semitic person and a Nubian on it, it is as important to describe the Giza sphinx's appearance as "Negroid" as it is to report its height and length. Further, "Negroid" is not necessarily a racial designation. As used by Domingo -- who also used the words "Nubian" and "African," the term clearly was meant to convey physical appearance, rather than a strict racial designation. It's no different from someone referring to an "Asian male," or a "Latino male." This discussion about the validity about race as an unscientific concept is wholly and utterly irrelevant. deeceevoice 04:41, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

See my comments under Why. deeceevoice 05:14, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Discussion re straw poll 2

relocated comments re straw poll two & the process in general

I find it amusing that those who so readily included information in another article about the report of a "Caucasoid" King Tut find the inclusion of information about a Negroid Sphinx so objectionable. Clearly, such designations have relevance and importance -- as is evidenced by the recent Tut reconstructions. Such terms are still in use today by reputable professionals; they are useful in characterizing the human form. The Tut pronouncement had great relevance to Egyptologists, the press and everyone else. But suddenly precisely the same kind of information is irrelevant here? The telling thing is how no objection is raised when the inclusion of such information in an article militates against the notion of a black, African ancient Egypt and enures to the benefit of those who would posit another, fictional presumption, but at the first mention of "Negroid" anything, the notion is somehow fringe, or contrary to a completely irrelevant statement by a professional association about "race." This is precisely the kind of crap the few openly black editors here have in mind when we speak of the inherent racism/racial bias of this website. deeceevoice 04:24, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Those who oppose the moving of the information to either the "Description" or "Origin and Identity" section have tried unsuccessfully to challenge/impugn the professionalism and credibility of Sheldon Peck and Frank Domingo. They have absolutely no standing to do so. Personal opinions don't count.

They have tried to discredit the use of "Negroid" as a descriptive term -- when it and other related descriptors very clearly are terms still in use today to describe persons and artifacts. Simply Googling "Negroid," "Mongoloid" and "Caucasoid" will produce any number of hits, among them, a NAGPRA site maintained by the U.S. Dept. of the Interior ("Negroid"),[10] an FBI web page ("Negroid" & "Caucasoid"), [11], any number of articles re the King Tut reconstruction ("Caucasoid"), and -- oh, wonder of wonders -- an article on Wikipedia ("Mongoloid"), Iranian theory regarding the origin of the Azerbaijanis. Contrary to the assertions made herein, these are far from descredited terms. deeceevoice 05:02, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

They state at the outset that positioning the information about the ethnicity of the sphinx in a section treating crackpot theories does not mean their intent is to demean or discredit the notion of a Negroid sphinx, that it is a crackpot theory. But the very text of the section's lead paragraph belies such a claim. And then these same editors set about -- with no standing and no expertise whatsoever themselves -- to discredit the respected presenters of that information, a Harvard professor/medical professional and a forensics professional, characterizing them as, if not crackpots, most certainly abysmally incompetent. They have failed utterly in defending their placement of the information. deeceevoice 06:03, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

I had never heard that the Sphinx was a Afro-Semite until I came to this page. Judging from the citations, seems like few outside law enforcement, orthodonture, and novelist communites have. This is a fairly simple case of editors trying to maintain a high-quality article, not a racist conspiracy. Justforasecond 04:54, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

"Afro-Semite"? No. Judging from the information produced, the portrayal is of a straight-up black, African pharaoh. And sorry to burst your bubble, JFAS, but I'm certain there's a whole lot you've never heard of. Indeed, the same could be said for all of us. And, no. This is not about what does or does not populate your conceptual universe; it's about information. deeceevoice 05:09, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately the theory, as presented in the Ethnicity section, still seems to be asserting that the sphinx does not reperesent a pharaoh at all. The issues of whether the sphinx represented a pharaoh, whether the sphinx represents a certain racial type, and whether the pharaohs were of a certain racial type, are still being confounded in my mind. Pity the poor person who is called in via the survey page and can't make sense of it. Maybe this should be sorted out. -Dan 192.75.48.150 17:44, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

And now, failing to defend their position, they have resorted to creating a vote to erase the information from the article altogether -- in effect, censorship. Shameful. deeceevoice 10:11, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

the portrayal is of a straight-up black, African pharaoh - then you should have no trouble providing mainstream sources from Egyptologists to back that conclusion up. -- Stbalbach 14:56, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

There is no requirement that learned, scholarly sources be of a singular discipline in order to carry weight. The information is already properly and adequately sourced. deeceevoice 16:20, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

I assume you are talking about the police officer, novelist, and orthodontist? (sounds like the beginning of a bad joke, doesn't it?) We'd be hard pressed to find similarly eclectically sourced material in wiki. Justforasecond 16:29, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

(relocated)

• Bad survey - Attempting to force the issue. Unlikely to resolve anything. 192.75.48.150 17:34, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

• Straw polls don't "force issues", but they do show where general consensus is. -- Stbalbach 17:54, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

• Yes, "Do you want X or Y?" is intended to gauge an existing consensus. And then there's "X sucks because (several paras follow). Agreed? Oh, and please keep discussion off this page." That is something else entirely. Granted this particular survey isn't an example of something quite so terrible. But it's closer to the latter than the former. Admittedly, it might work anyway. On the other hand people just plain don't like being told what to think, so it might actually backfire. 192.75.48.150 18:20, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

• Fine. Then I provisionally vote no, because 1) if I try to vote honestly, it gets punted, which annoys me, 2) so far it sounds like the race of the ancient egyptians is a subject worth talking about, to the point where it gets its own article (which, oddly, isn't linked from this article); 3) so far it sounds like the race of the sphinx is part of that subject, 4) so far it sounds like there's more than a few lines to be said about it, one way or another, 5) it is unfortunate that it has taken up so much of the editors' time, but that was an individual choice on each of the editors' parts, and quite beside the point, certainly by itself that is no reason to delete the topic altogether. -Dan 192.75.48.150 19:18, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Okay, my suggestion: Insert the Domingo part to the identity section:

"Frank Domingo, a senior forensics artist with the New York City Police Department who had traveled to Egypt to take measurements of the Sphinx's head, generated a model of the head of the Sphinx both by hand and utilizing computer graphics, and determined that the Sphinx represented a person other than Khafra."

And replace the race part with something like: "The race of the monument has been subject of an ongoing debate around the racial characteristics of the ancient Egyptians, for further information see Controversy over racial characteristics of Ancient Egyptians." That should be sufficient. There is no need to spread outdated racist theories all over this place. CoYep 20:11, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

i think you've got a good plan. best to leave it out but if we must have something, link to an article dedicated to the material. Justforasecond 21:23, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

I've been suggesting linking to the Controversy over racial characteristics of Ancient Egyptians article for a long time but deeceevoice says that the ethnicity of the sphinx has nothing to do with the ethnicity of the ancient Egyptians .. but then above she said the portrayal is of a straight-up black, African pharaoh - no one talks about the ethnicity of the sphinx without also talking about the ethnicity of the ancient Egyptians, even deeceevoice, it just doesn't make sense out of context - why even bring it up otherwise? -- Stbalbach 21:47, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, quite remarkable that she added the exact same verbiage she inserted here [12] to the Controversy over racial characteristics of Ancient Egyptians article [13], isn't it? But she is known for this kind of POV pushing, and placed on probation. [14]CoYep 10:55, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

I think we're approaching a consensus here: Mention that Afrocentrists believe the current face on the Sphinx depicts a "black man" though scientific consensus is that race is an artificial concept. Mention a few amateur sleuths have observed "negroid" characteristics in the statue. Provide a link to the Controversy article. Justforasecond 22:14, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Deeceevoice says it has nothing to do with Afrocentricsm, that it is as plain a fact that the statue is of a black man as the white house is white. Her supporting evidence is the picture, and the various quotes from non-Egyptologists. Anyone who disagrees with her experts is engaging in original research, and it is our responsibility to prove the position wrong. The statement from the AAA is of no relevance since it doesn't mention the Sphinx specifically, and using that to discredit her experts is original research. My position is the question of the Sphinx can and should only be answered by Egytologists. The best we have is the AAA position on race which basically says "we make no comment" for XYZ reasons. -- Stbalbach 23:23, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Draft Article

Here is a draft for a new ethicity section. Opinions? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Sphinx_of_Giza/Draft Altarbo 23:09, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

"Many authors"? Do you mean the novelist, police officer, and orthodontist? The Sphinx originally depicted a lion; the face was just hacked into the stone later on. Justforasecond 23:18, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Is that accurate? That is the first I heard that. The nose was knocked off but that's the only change I've heard of. -- Stbalbach 23:25, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

At least thats the opinion of Colin Reader:

He had already concluded that the Sphinx was originally carved probably with a lion's head, and then recarved in the 4th Dynasty, possibly by Khafre, on the basis of two pieces of evidence. First, the disproportionately small size of the head of the monument in relation to its body; and second, the extent of preservation of the details on the head, which - albeit that it is carved from more durable Member III limestones - he feels is because in its recarved form it had hardly any time to be exposed to the harshest chemical weathering which occurred during the wettest climatic conditions pre-2350 BC (remember that chemical weathering is itself at its most aggressive in conditions of high humidity - he applies the same logic to the relatively unweathered enclosure wall to the north of the Sphinx Temple). Reader backs up this assertion by suggesting that a number of recumbent lion statues have been found dating at least as far back as the First Dynasty.[15]

Schoch states that nobody could determine what the original head looked like, but agrees with the re-carving part:

The Fourth Dynasty Egyptians repaired and refurbished the Sphinx and associated buildings, and at some point during early dynastic times the head of the Sphinx appears to have been re-carved (the head of the Great Sphinx is actually out of proportion to the body; it is too small, as would be expected if an earlier and badly weathered head was re-carved; there is no way now to determine what the original head of the Great Sphinx looked like).[16]

CoYep 09:58, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Interesting section, seems to balance both sides. -- Stbalbach 23:30, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Your draft is fine for the Controversy over racial characteristics of Ancient Egyptians article (eventhough I don't know about any forensic experts (unless you call Schoch an forensic expert) who have determined the "race" of the Sphinx, and it's incorrect to claim that prognathism is "unusual in peoples traditionally classified as Caucasian", unless the goal is to write a 19th century encyclopedia), but this article isn't the right place to discuss the controversy, it should only link to it. CoYep 09:14, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

I think it's an excellent section, Altarbo -- uses citations to describe the controversy and significance, without taking sides, and is just about the right length for addressing the issue. — Catherine\^talk 09:36, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

A good draft. I made a few corrections: Great Zimbabwe was a city, as opposed to a monument (surely an inadvertent goof), some strictly copyedit stuff -- changing of the use of the passive voice, closing a split verb, etc. -- and a few additions, but it's basically good. One concern. Domingo doesn't classify the Sphinx as "Negro," but "Negroid." There's a difference. "Negroid" is a term descriptive of a set of phenotypical characteristics and is not a racial designation. The same can be said for the term "Caucasoid," as there are some who use (IMO, ridiculously) that term to describe some black Africans and certain East Indian populations. So, the business about "clines" and race is irrelevant. Further, to my knowledge, Domingo is the only forensic artist who has examined the sphinx specifically, so the use of the plural there is inappropriate/inaccurate. Still, a good effort. deeceevoice 19:33, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

I appreciate all of the comments and edits on the Draft.Altarbo 20:42, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

CoYep, you stated,

"it's incorrect to claim that prognathism is "unusual in peoples traditionally classified as Caucasian", unless the goal is to write a 19th century encyclopedia), but this article isn't the right place to discuss the controversy, it should only link to it."

How is it incorrect? Please provide an explanation or sources. Also, why is this not the right place to discuss the impact of the Great Sphinx's ethnicity? Are you objecting purely to the part you quoted, or the idea in general? If it's the former, then would you provide an explanation of what about the draft would have to be change/edited to make it good enough to be put into the article.Altarbo 20:42, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Deeceevoice, I would consider "Negroid" to be a racial classification. The negroid, caucasoid, mongoloid classifications, are analagous with the Black, White, and Yellow races. I also was under the impression, that these terms were first used in The Races of Europe, but I might be wrong about that. I realize that it doesn't have the same conotations about mental capabilities, but I think most people would still consider them to be racial classifications. You're right about the grammar, though. I changed the draft section's wording, to something similar to original section.Altarbo 20:42, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

I took another look at the draft and reordered the information, top to bottom. The title of the section, and the main point is the sphinx's ethnicity, so that information should lead the section -- not a discussion of racism and racist beliefs. deeceevoice 21:25, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Altarabo, no they're not. Only Craniofacially, being an Ethiopian I would be classified as a white male, while this is clearly not the case (on the other hand, using limb-proportions, I would be probably be classified as "super-negroid). — ዮም | (Yom) | Talk • contribs • Ethiopia 03:51, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

straw poll 2 -- remove race from article

Most of this talk page is concerned with the "race" of the Sphinx. I'm not sure the "race" is an important thing to describe, and most educated agree that it is a false concept, but even if that weren't the case, the smidgens of information concerning this come from a novelist, an orthodontist's letter to the editor, a police officer, and a new-age geologist. Seeing as this is a huge distraction based on the flimsiest of evidence, I'd suggest that we don't include any reference to the Sphinx' "race" in this article. (discussion longer than roughly one line per comment will be relocated)

• SUPPORT Justforasecond 23:22, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
• Support - although we should still mention the "controversy" - a couple of lines would be more than sufficient. --Gene_poole 23:27, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
• I Oppose (discussion relocated) deeceevoice 04:24, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
• SUPPORT This article isn't the right place to discuss the controversy, it's sufficient to link it. See proposal above [17]CoYep 07:10, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
• SUPPORT --Stbalbach 14:44, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose - the question is a real one; it should be mentioned here. — Catherine\^talk 16:30, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose - (discussion relocated) 192.75.48.150 18:39, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose see above. Altarbo 23:20, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Frank Domingo / New York Times

The 1992 New York Times article about Domingo needs to be cited - the reference from Schoch is an unreliable secondary source - also I want to read this article to verify what it says. -- Stbalbach 01:12, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

cant' find it. perhaps it should be stricken. Justforasecond 02:43, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Let's give it a few days. -- Stbalbach 13:06, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

---

I have obtained copies through my library of both NYT articles. The first is called "The Case of the Missing Pharo" by John Anthony West published in the New York Times OpEd section June 27, 1992. The second is a response to the OpEd, also in the OpEd section, by Sheldon peck on Jul 18, 1992.

The first article makes no mention of race at all. It is about comparing the face on a statue of Chephren at a museum in Cairo with the face of the Sphinx to determine if they are the same person. Frank Domingo was brought in to determine if these were the same person. (the following is a direct quote from the OpEd):

His [Frank Domingo] report concludes: "After reviewing my various drawings, schematics and measurements, my final conclusion concurs with my initial reactions. The two works represent two separate individuals. The proportions in the frontal view and especially the angles and facial protrusion of the lateral views convinced me that the Sphinx is not Chephren. If the ancient Egyptians were skilled technicians and capable of duplicating images, than these two works can not represent the same individual."

That is all Domingo says. He makes no conclusions or even observations about "race" (indeed, as a professional scientist, he shouldn't). It is Schoch who leaps to the conclusion of "race" - based on what? Nothing but his own racist opinion .. as a Geologist.

Next, the second OpEd by orthodontist Sheldon Peck makes the same leap to a "racial" conclusion. Based on what? His racist opinion .. as an orthodontist.

Conclusion:

1. Frank Domingo makes no mention of race and should not be associated with this racial stuff at all. Not only is it incorrect, it is possibly damaging to him personally to be associated with racist theories that he never says. Under the Living Person's rules of Wikipedia it needs to be striken immediately.
2. Schoch and Peck are not qualified to make opinions about race of ancient peoples. Qualified experts would include Anthropologists, Archaeologists and Egyptologists. See WP:Reliable sources - I'm happy to quote relevant rules as needed. Their opnions are unreliable and need to be removed.

-- Stbalbach 18:14, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for tracking down the NY Times article, Stbalbach! Good that this is finally clarified. CoYep 21:17, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Say good-bye to the Afro-semitic Sphinx

It's been fun while it lasted, but it seems this was based on ... nothing. Justforasecond 21:19, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

It's easy to document people calling it Negroid, the problem is Decceevoice has yet to obtain reliable sources from professionals who do this for a living, instead we have opinions in "letters to the editor" and casual observations by non-specialists which don't qualify as being reliable, per the definition of reliable set by Wikipedia.

I'm of the opinion that any racial explanation is racist at heart - the majority of scientists who study this for a living have issued a consensus statement on their position on race - race is not a viable concept scientifically. Of course there is a difference between "scientific racism" (as we see in Schoch) and "popular culture racism" (as we see in 19th century observers and some present-day people). I think Deeceevoice has those confused, she is trying to use science to counter the "popular culture racism", but in doing so, she is advocating the "scientific racists", and thus ironically, becoming that which she wishes to fight. One would think Deeceevoice, if she really cared about stamping our racism, would support the AAA statement on race and not propagate the old racist ideas. -- Stbalbach 22:53, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Sorry Deecevoice and catherine, but I'm going to have to side with the opposing side this time and say that the Sphinx's (racial) identity, blatantly obvious (even to the layman) as it is, should not be a subject in this article, it should belong under Afrocentricism. Stbalbach you seem a little bit confused babe, a scientist can acknowledge that certain geographic populations have unique cranio-facial/bodily features without labeling that population a biological "race", see SO Keita, he's a shining example of this. How's that scientific racism? And to the guy whose name escapes me, well actually I'm too lazy to search the entire page, why would an orthodontist be unqualified to report on prognathism? Prognathism is prominence of the jaws and teeth, areas which in an orthodontist is trained to examine. Get back to me man. Peace. Teth22 06:52, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I agree that the extrapolations to the population of Egypt should be removed. In fact, the way the section originally was written, there is no reference to it. Keep the first two paragraphs, and ditch the rest -- which do more properly belong in the article treating the controversy over the race of ancient Egyptians. The first two paragraphs (with appropriate quotes and sources as presented earlier in the article itself), however, deal with observations and descriptions of the sphinx and are perfectly appropriate here. deeceevoice 12:43, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

And ditto to Teth's remarks on the orthodontist. In forensic science and forensic anthropology, there's a whole component of analysis devoted to faciocranial structure -- dentation and maxillary and alveolar prognathism in forensic science -- as means to help determine racial/ethnic identity of unidentified human remains. And that's a fact. deeceevoice 12:55, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Hey deecevoice, you gotta send me those other three e-mails. Peace. Teth22 17:55, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Say goodbye? Not! "Opinion surveys should be used to determine whether a consensus exists, not to decide which side 'wins'."[18]deeceevoice 22:53, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

We've reached a consensus, deeceevoice. This material is either not true -- the "Domingo" article doesnt' say what this article says it does, or it is not notable. A letter to the editor does not meet the criteria for notability. Justforasecond 23:11, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Again read the Wiki guidelines. If you want verification of Domingo's findings, then ask for citations, and I'll see about providing them. deeceevoice 23:14, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Read the wiki guidelines long ago. We've already gone through the trouble of looking for citations (see above). If you've found anything new feel free to inform us, till then, we have to keep this info out. Justforasecond 23:38, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Again, deeceevoice. There is consensus to keep this out of here. Perhaps it fits in the "Controversy..." article. Some of us previously thought it had at least some merit, but thanks to stbalbach going to the library, we now know Frank Domingo didn't conclude the Sphynx was a "black" person. All that's left is the a non-notable letter to the editor and, at best, a misunderstanding from a quack geologist. Neither of these are any more notable than your own opinion. Justforasecond 04:04, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

I have to agree with Deeceevoice and every editor above on this one. It belongs where she first placed it on 15:37, October 16, 2005 in the Controversy over race of Ancient Egyptians article [19]

Deeceevoice, I don't often agree with you, but in this case I do agree with you as well as all of the editors above.

-- That Guy, From That Show! 09:37, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

It shouldn't be included in any article because it's incorrect and nonfactual. The NY Times article DCV keeps referring to makes no mention of race at all. CoYep 05:58, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Napoleon

As well, it is believed that Napoléon admired history and its great structures, so it is unlikely he would have vandalized one.

The Napoleonic troops vandalized and stole lots of heritage (mostly churches) during the Peninsula war. That argument is not very convincing.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 193.203.200.2 (talk • contribs) .

Agreed, it's speculation - maybe it was Napoleons troops one drunken night, who knows. -- Stbalbach 17:25, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Napoleon's men shot at the Sphinx. AllStarZ 01:21, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Note

The article draft page originally located at Great Sphinx of Giza/Draft has been moved to Talk:Great Sphinx of Giza/Rough draft. The talk page can still be found at Talk:Great Sphinx of Giza/Draft. Khatru2 02:29, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Mike's barnstar

An anon wishes one of editors to be acknowledged but is doing so by placing this on the article, I'm not sure who Mike is amongst the editors here so I'll put it here until it's claimed.

		The Barnstar of Good Humor
		Cheers Mike for all your hard work! 130.195.86.36 12:43, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Origin and identity section

This section poorly represents mainstream scholarship. In fact it currently reads like a covert attack against mainstream scholarship, without fairly representing what that scholarship is. There are a number of decent books on the subject, for example chapter 3 of Sphinx: History of a Monument, with a few pages online, one can clearly see there is a lot more to the story than being represented here. Without buying the book or some other book I'm not sure how to best correct this. If anyone has decent sources available that would be a great help. -- Stbalbach 03:09, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Being I am the main contributer to Origins and Identity I suppose I should chime in here and respectfully disagree that this section is an attack, "covert" or otherwise, of mainstream scholorship, but is meant to be a responsible representation of the facts as accepted by the mainstream regardless of appearances. The reference you cite strangely supports this view so I'm not really sure what point you're trying to make other than you just don't "like the way it "sounds". I would point out in passing that PBS's Nova Online, as mainstream a rag if there ever was one, says that the Sphinx is "believed" to be, not "was" built by Khafre, and responsibly gives an age of "undetermined" whereas they are otherwise relatively definitive on these matters concerning all other Giza monuments. Given they rely soley on mainstream scholorship, why is this? If it undisputably was built by Khafre, or popular consensus was overwhelming enough as to warrant no other conclusion, why not just say "was", and if so, then the age would not be "undetermined" but credited to the time he reigned. They do this to their credit because the evidence to support these claims as I have outlined in this section is tenuous at best leaving the current state of mainstream scholorship, despite what is passed off in popular media as "fact", as "believed to be" and "undetermined". While this may be unflattering to the mainstream, by their own admission it the truth of the matter nonetheless, regardless of one's point of view. After reading your comments I did edit some of the phrasing to better showcase mainstream dogma, which doesnt change the facts either way, but may make it more palatable for some.thanos5150

Of course there is dispute. But the way to approach it is to say what the "mainstream dogma" is up-front (without framing it as "dogma" which is clearly pejorative), and say why, and how, and when, and who that conclusion was reached, giving the names of the scientists and papers involved and the historiography involved. Then offer alternative theories in separate sections, again attributing them to specific named individuals and cited works. PBS Nova and other TV shows are not scientific or scholarly sources. The way it is now, the currently accepted theory is being mixed together with other theories and counter-theories so the reader is left with an impression designed by you, the author, on how you want them to receive the "mainstream dogma", instead of allowing the reader to make up their own mind based on the facts presented. -- Stbalbach 15:00, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, it does lead with what the mainstream (who) believes point by point and consequently why there is a dispute at all (which you agree exists), and the when's are cited as well, but regardless nowhere are their pejorative words like "dogma" used. Sources are cited for all references (though I need to add one about the diorite statue) including the names of recognized scientists where applicable like Henry Salt, Auguste Mariette, Vassil Dobrev,and Rainer Stadelmann. The evidence cited, though often ommited to give the impression you desire, is a matter of academic record and is crux to why the debate continues to exist within mainstream Egytology. The "alternative theories" used to highlight the debate are limited to mainstream Egytologists themselves, so why would they not be included or separated if only to demean the descenting opinion giving the reader the impression there really is no dispute? Maybe something like this would be better:

"The Great Sphinx was built in his own likeness by Pharoah Khafre who ruled between 2558-2532 B.C.. Khafre was named in the Dream Stela as the builder and the Sphinx is part of his greater funerary complex which includes the Sphinx and Valley Temples. Though alternative theories exist as to who may have constructed the monument, most of these claims are considered psuedoscience and are not supported by mainstream Egyptologists."

Is this what you mean by not leading the reader and letting them make up their own mind? Here I have used the mainstream opinion as fact, though by their own admission none of it is, and have effectively dismissed and discredited all debate regardless of its credibility or origin. I can see where you find what is written in this section unsettling, but the facts are what they are regardless of opinion, yours or mine, and personally I fail to see how to word it as such diminishes the mainstream view because this is the mainstream view.thanos5150

See Decline of the Roman Empire for an example of how to deal with controversial topics that have multiple points of view. Create sections for each theory and list the names of the people and the works they have published. We are simply reporters, we report on what other people say. We need to cite who the people are, what they said, where they said it. That is valuable and important information. The theory on Khafre needs its own section, and should be listed first, with some qualifying statement that is the most widely accepted. You don't need to come out say "this is who the Sphinx is" in a black and white manner, I think every scientist agrees we have a "best case" or "traditional" scenario, and other scenarios as well. -- Stbalbach 15:04, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

The Roman Empire is a good article that lends itself well to this kind of format mostly because of the open nature of the subject and debate. Egyptology on the other hand is infinitely more territorial and traditionally less condusive to such openess, and these days there is little reference of other modern mainstream opinion beyond what is offered by Lehner and Hawass. I dont think this is indicative historically of the facts, but more of the control and influence those 2 have exerted on the field over the last 25 years. When I found the Origins and Identity section it was rather lacking and deleted nothing, but only added to it to better clarify why the origin is uncertain. In many cases when editing, I've found it best to add as little as possible to start as to not create too much of a stir and once the new information has been digested to go from there as to growth of format. The opening statement of this section originally didnt even mention what the mainstream view was which in fairness is something I added. I would agree it should be clarified and expanded, but within the constraints of my own time for now I've resigned that task for others. As you say, we are "reporters", and only in an open source format like this is the opportunity even availiable to represent "both sides" of an issue, which in traditional media is generally not acceptable. To me, this is the true spirit of Wikipedia, with the challange being to fairly report all the facts and not just regurgitate mainstream opinion as such. This is what Encyclopedia Britannica is for.thanos5150

Library

Is there not a hypothesized library under the sphinx?

As we know, Edgar Cayce predicted the discovery of a "Hall of Records" under the right paw of the sphinx, and apparently, archaeologist Zahi Hawass discovered a set of rooms, that supposedly turned out to be empty. Someone please chime in if you know anything 75.41.58.207 03:23, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Edgar Cayce? you actually site Cayce as a credible source? puulease!

Deeceevoice's return

Deeceevoice, I give you a lot of credit for persistence and clever ideas. Unfortunately this latest addition is clearly a re-frame the same old sources along new lines in order to quote the same old quotes in the article. And once again the same reasons for removing it: the sources are unreliable. Notice the qualitative difference between French Egyptologist Vassil Dobrev 20-year examination and peer-reviewed study -- and the Egyptian holiday of a New York police officer who published a letter to editor in the New York Times op/ed section 20-some years ago and who we have heard nothing since. According to the policy Wikipedia:Verifiability:

Articles should rely on credible, third-party sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. For academic subjects, the sources should preferably be peer-reviewed. Sources should also be appropriate to the claims made: outlandish claims require stronger sources.

Clearly these sources are not very strong, and the claims are, in light of currently accepted wisdom, outlandish. -- 21:04, 17 October 2006 (UTC) TEST —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.121.109.48 (talk) 03:20, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Just what "outlandish" claims are you referring to, and what "currently acceptedly wisdom"? deeceevoice 04:21, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Sphinx & Great Sphinx of Giza which one?

There are two articles here under different names (Sphinx & Great Sphinx of Giza) which one is the original? maybe delete it. I won't though Their talking about the same thing though as well.Sphinx and Great Sphinx of Giza Thanks Cool guy45 01:00, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

No, they are about two different things. This article specifically covers the Great Sphinx of Giza. Mgiganteus1 01:04, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

I feel embarrassed now ha-ha-ha thanks MgiganteusCool guy45 03:35, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Dimensions

The given dimensions (57m x 6m), which have been in this article since the beginning, appear to be incorrect. The 57m doesn't account for the front paws. 73m which I've seen in a couple refs looks correct. And the 6m appears to just be the width of the face. The overall width looks more like 16m to me, but I can find even fewer refs mentioning the width of anything except the face, and none saying 16m. --GregU 16:11, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Legend of a hidden chamber?

I once heard a story (i think it was on a documentary but i cant remember the name) that achaelogists used ultrasound to find that there was a square hollow space under the sphinx's paw. They said it might be a hidden chamber but the egyptian government forbade its excavation due to a legend that unsealing the chamber would begin Amaggeddon (as in the biblical one). However I have since been unable to find any info on this. Does anyone know if a hollow space was actualy dicovered? Was this a myth? for that matter maybe i dreamed it... my memory of the story is really vague. :p Mloren 12:58, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Schoch followup seismic study - http://www.robertschoch.com/Sphinx_Seismic_Studies.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.116.105.117 (talk) 00:33, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Check this article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edgar_Casey

It was his biography, in a documentary on the History Channel. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.71.144.65 (talk) 07:13, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

• No it was a documentary by Dr Hawass aired in 1998 - see the comments a little way down the page for more info Spuzzdawg —Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.26.80.10 (talk) 05:15, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Sphinx in 1925.jpg

Image:Sphinx in 1925.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 05:42, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Geology and POV

Have I missed something, or is everything in the article about geology POV in that it doesn't mention any of the geological work that supports the conventional dating? It makes it look as though all the geologists who have studied it disagree with the conventional date.--Doug Weller (talk) 15:27, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Removing stuff added by editor about his ideas

I've just removed some stuff added by Creigs1707 which is his own OR linked to his personal website -- COI, nonnotable fringe stuff. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dougweller (talk • contribs) 09:20, 6 April 2008‎ (UTC)

Weathering and the sphinx

I "read somewhere" that the sphinx was carved using an existing outcrop - to what extent could the weathering have occurred prior to the carving rather than supposedly afterwards - ie there were not the resources/time to polish the stone down to below the level of the weathering (or it was desired to have the "largest possible construction" rather than "fully perfect version). Jackiespeel (talk) 16:05, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

This would be a fairly simple hypothesis to test. If the 'weathering' over most of the sphinx is fairly uniform then it must have happened after carving unless the outcrop just happened to be formed naturally into a sphinx. My thoughts are that it is fairly self evident that the weathering marks were not made prior to carving. Spuzzdawg (talk) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.26.80.10 (talk) 05:09, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Factual revisions

This is getting childish. Somebody who insists on including a long waffle about commentators who perceive the Sphinx to have "black" facial characteristics keeps undoing a ream of corrections and improvements. If you want to include this narrow and biased "opinion", then you should also mention the thousands of archaeologists who don't think the Sphinx has "black" facial characteristics at all. Since the mainstream view is that the face is that of Khafra, then why don't you leave in my link to a known statue of Khafra, which clearly does not evidence any "black" facial characteristics at all????

Fact - the Sphinx is not half human and half lion, it is 94% lion with a human head - which was quite possibly recarved from an original lion's head. Why do you keep undoing this change?

Fact - the text refers to Djedefre as Khafa's brother in one part of the text, but as his son in the beginning - they can't both be right, but you keep undoing this correction - why?

You persist in reversing a lot of perfectly plausible criticisms of the mainstream interpretations, thereby depriving readers of a valuable rounding out of the topic. Since this is a major part of what you incorrectly call the "Riddle of the Sphinx", why do you keep deleting it? You insist on reinstating baseless conjecture about the racial origins of the Sphinx, for the sake of "completeness", yet you choose to leave out valid factual argument against the provenance of the Sphinx. Why this bias?

The section "description" is more a discussion of the name of the statue, and only at the end it adds a small paragraph of physical detail which repeats detail already mentioned earlier. Why your commitment to this repetition? Why are you so dead set against improving the text by relocating the discussion of the origins of the name?

The water erosion debate is science, not pseudoscience, and is a valuable addition to the knowledge base - why are you again biased against giving this scientific debate due recognition? Irrespective that the conclusions that Schoch and Reader draw from their scientific data contradict that of mainstream archaeology, these conclusions are as well founded, if not better founded, than those of the mainstream Egyptologists. The scientifically-founded arguments of Schoch and Reader do not belong under the same heading as the fancies of Hancock and Bauval.

If you disagree with a particular item, then please correct it by adding the required extra information. However blindly undoing the entire edit because you prefer to have more detail on the racially-charged musings of a handful of commentators is unhelpful and unprofessional.

Signed - wdford Wdford (talk) 15:45, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Please, Wdford, wait a moment. Usually new comments are posted on the bottom of the talk page. Not only had the issue of the 'racial characteristics' been discussed previously, I also wrote an elaborate comment as a response to you edits, to which you didn't reply. I think that we have a very good reason to give the various views on the racial characteristics of the Sphinx in THIS ARTICLE. Even if we had an article an article that could accommodate the material that she was 'black', we couldn't give the views of those people that whose "description reflects their uncertainty on the subject" there. But you are not even reaching this point of the discussion. Instead you are being arrogant and call that section "unprofessional". Well let me explain something to you:

Yaacov Shavit's book History in Black: African-Americans in Search of an Ancient Past is probably the best academic work on the (radical) Afrocentric views concerning ancient Egypt (and ancient Greece, etc.) It has more than 400 pages. Now, I don't know how long it takes you to read such a book, but we have the EXACT PAGE NUMBER where the views on the Sphinx are discussed. I would say that there are at least two hours of work behind that footnote, and that assumes either a very fast reader or someone with a very good memory. That said, a removal of sourced material like you are doing it is not acceptable. Either you make the effort of proposing your changes to the article in detail here on the discussion page, section by section, or you will have to leave the article alone. Zara1709 (talk) 16:48, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Correspondence with Zara1709:

Sorry about putting my response at the top - that was sloppy. My bad.

My reply to your "elaborate comment" was posted this morning, together with my proposed modifications to the article itself. I see you didn't bother even to assess the many improvements, but lazily reversed the entire effort, including reinstating the factual errors and contradictions. That is hardly helpful. You also didn't bother to address my various criticisms and suggestions, preferring instead to focus on your favourite section of the racial characteristics. That is not helpful either.

I did read the discussion on racial characteristics, but I don't agree with your conclusion - and I see I am not alone in this. I see no reference to Yaacov Shavit in your text, so I am not sure of the context of your comment, but nonetheless the view that the Sphinx is ‘black’ is the view of a tiny minority – you need to reflect this reality, but you have not done so. If you absolutely "MUST" dwell on hypothetical racial identifications, then you need to do so even-handedly. You would need to stress that the VAST MAJORITY of all scholars and tourists DO NOT consider the Sphinx to be a representation of a 'black' person, as well as that the VAST MAJORITY of scholars consider the model for the face to have been King Khafra, who does not look at all 'black' in any of his surviving statues. You also need to leave in the links to those statues, so that readers can view the statues of Khafra and make up their own minds. However, while I heartily disagree with this entire topic, in the interests of co-operation I have modified the section again. Please consider it with an open mind.

I look forward also to a reasoned evaluation of my other corrections and additions, rather than a blind reversal.

I note that you consider the Sphinx to be a “she”. On what basis, please? Was King Khafra a woman in disguise, or do you adhere to the “alternative” view that Khafra was not the model?

Wdford (talk) 18:38, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

You don't get it; I can't comment on your various other edits, because you made your revision in one big large edit. If you would make suggested improvements section by section, we could discuss each separately. But first you should familiarise yourself with the policy of Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. Seriously, I don't care who the Sphinx is supposed to depict. (Shaavit doesn't mention that either.) The only thing I care about is the section that gives a balanced overview about the Afrocentrist' claim that she would portray someone 'black'. This is a significant minority view, which is why we are naming prominent adherents. AND THAT IS WHY THE NAMES THAT ARE GIVEN IN THIS SECTION NEED TO STAY. Shavit is an authoritative source on this by the way. For this reason we don't need to write: "According to Shavit, most of the European travelers and scholars, notably the British Egyptologist E. A. Wallis Budge, rejected Chassebœuf 's views. " but simply: "Most of the European travelers and scholars, etc." and give the full citation in the ref. You might have good reasons to assume that your version of the article is better; but currently we are not actually getting to discuss that. If you continue to revert, this will be just another ugly edit war for me (I've been through a lot of them now), but a very disappointing experience for you. Zara1709 (talk) 19:38, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Actually you could comment on the various changes, with the most minor sort of effort, by simply reading the material and deciding whether or not you have a supportable objection to any aspect thereof. No single editor owns the copyright to any site, and no single editor has the right to continually reinstate errors and contradictions because their ego has not been pandered to sufficiently. I am well aware of the neautrality policy, and I have adhered to it thoroughly. My proposed wording is perfectly neutral, while at the same time remaining factually accurate. Your wording gives much more emphasis to the Afrocentrist viewpoint than their significance warrants, and therefore your own neutrality is in doubt. If you really believe it is appropriate to name half a dozen "prominent adherents" of the Afrocentrist view, and if you really believe that an 18th century philosopher is a "prominent adherent", then to be neutral you also need to name 26000 or so "prominent adherents" who believe the Sphinx does NOT represent a 'black' model. On that basis the racial characteristics section should be part of the alternate hypothesis section, right at the end, as there are more people who believe the Sphinx represents an alien or an Atlantean than believe the model was 'black'. Do you not agree? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wdford (talk • contribs) 20:19, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

I repeatedly told you that you could make your edits section by section. I also made clear, I hope, that I am willing to discuss it - but first we need to find some sort of understanding on the 'racial characteristics' section. Zara1709 (talk) 20:24, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Warning re edit warring

Can we please stop the edit warring. You've done stage 1 - start talkng about it; and even stage 2 - attract outside attention. Splendid. Lets try to solve this. I think the first stage is to stop the blanket reversions. If you disagree with one small part, revert that, not the whole thing. For one thing, it makes it a lot easier for everyone else to see what is going on and what the core issues for dispute are. Secondly, Z and W have done enough reverting and it makes it hard for others to see what is going on. You're both limited to 1 revert per 24h (and please read WP:REVERT, its broader than you think) for a little while to let the article cool down a bit and others to get their chance William M. Connolley (talk) 21:54, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

See the comment on the noticeboard. Obviously I will need to revert "the whole thing" because, because WDfort didn't take his edits 'step by step'. Like the first step for rearranging content and the second for deleting content. I think he has realized by now that we need to discuss the 'racial characteristics' section, but he still removed sourced content without explanation. As far as I can say, at least the following passage was removed:

"The missing syllable “ra” was later added to complete the translation by Thomas Young, on the assumption that the text referred to “Khafra.” Young’s interpretation was based on an earlier facsimile in which the translation reads as follows:Who Built the Sphinx?: ...which we bring for him: oxen... and all the young vegetables; and we shall give praise to Wenofer ...Khaf.... the statue made for Atum-Hor-em-Akhet."

There are several other issues with the current revision, and tomorrow I will have to make a full revert. (On the other hand, if 3rr isn't actually enforced on this article, we shouldn't I do it now?) I admit, though that at least the edit to lead sentence is ok: "The Great Sphinx of Giza is a statue of a reclining lion with a human head, .." is better than just to say that she is half human, half lion. But altogether my impression is that Wdfort wants to push this article into a direction where the Sphinx is described more as a depiction of Khafra. Which would be ok, if we would discuss it here on the talk page, but Wford's previous style of editing is not ok. Zara1709 (talk) 22:50, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

No. You don't need to revert wholesale. I'm glad you prefer the new version of the opening, because so do I. Nor could I understand you reason for removing [20] the bit about the little temple, or the nice picture of just the head sticking out of the sand. I don't understand But altogether my impression is that Wdfort wants to push this article into a direction where the Sphinx is described more as a depiction of Khafra when your edit re-inserts that text, and removes The Great Sphinx is one of the world’s largest and oldest statues, yet basic facts about it such as who was the real-life model for the face, when it was built, and by whom, are still debated. A casual reading of the reverts suggests that it is you who wants it to be a depiction of Khafra. As to the missing para... consider re-inserting just that William M. Connolley (talk) 23:12, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

I know that sometimes admins have a hart job, but this is really pushes up my wikistress level. You didn't scroll down the diff you just posted. Otherwise you would have seen that I was not reverting that part about the temple, but the part about the 'racial characteristics' about which I wrote quite a lot on this discussion page, too. Wdfort replaced the version the names the adherents of the minority view with a version that doesn't. This version:

"Only a minority of observers have left comments on racial characteristics of the Sphinx; When writers do include racial descriptions in in their works, is it nearly always to inform the reader of the non-Hellenized Egyptian, Copt or Muslim characteristics of the Sphinx, as observed by them, using words like Ethiopian, Nubian, African and Negro. Emphasis on the 'black' characteristics of the ancient Egyptians is a common topic in Afrocentrism. Authors who have described the Sphinx as "negro" were the French philosopher Constantin-François Chassebœuf, who had visited Egypt between 1783 and 1785, and Gustave Flaubert, in the travel log chronicling his trip to Egypt in 1849. Most of the European travelers and scholars, notably the British Egyptologist E. A. Wallis Budge, rejected Chassebœuf 's views.

W.E.B. Du Bois, in his work The Negro (1915), asserted that the great Sphinx is similar to other statues of the world and represented "black, full-blooded negros."

Not so definite in his description was the British orientalist Edward William Lane, travelling in Egypt during 1825-1828, who wrote that the broken off nose gives the face of the Sphinx "much of a Negro character." The short description of the American writer George William Curtis, travelling in Egypt in 1849, reflects his uncertainty on the subject: "Its beauty is more Nubian than Egyptian or rather a blending of both."

Modern observers have also made notes of the sphinx's characteristics. In 1992, the New York Times published a letter to the editor submitted by then Harvard professor of orthodontics Sheldon Peck in which he commented on a study of the Giza sphinx conducted by New York City Police Department senior forensics artist Frank Domingo. Peck Wrote of the Sphinx, "This is an anatomical condition of forward development in both jaws, more frequently found in people of African ancestry than in those of Asian or Indo-European stock."

was replaced by that version:

Although it is generally accepted that the model for the face of the Sphinx was "Egyptian", it is not possible to determine the actual racial identity of that model from what remains of the statue. The main features such as the nose and lips are heavily damaged, while the hair is concealed by the head-dress. The jaw does clearly project well forward of the forehead, but this is not a characteristic unique to any single racial group. (See also the medical argument below.) Nonetheless a handful of commentators, including W.E.B. Du Bois in his work The Negro (1915), have held the view that the surviving remnants of the Sphinx appear to display 'black' racial characteristics - (this is a common topic in Afrocentrism) - although the vast majority of archaeologists, scholars and tourists do not agree. However, a close look at a known statue of Khafre indicates that he has no "typical" Negroid features at all.

I am not resolving all the ref tags here, but a list of 8 references to academic literature and works by known authors (WITH PAGE NUMBER) was replaced by two links to pictures of of Khafra. And Wdfort even called the first version 'poor'. Seriously, before we let this pass, we might just change wp:verifiability to: "Don't bother with adding reference, they will be removed anyway." And I really don't care about this Khafra guy, I even have to look up how he is spelled. All I am doing is insisting that referred content is not removed without an explanation. Zara1709 (talk) 23:40, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

If the section on negroid characteristics is the one you're disagreeing about, then it would be best to confine the disagreement to that section. Note that just because something has a reference doesn't mean it belongs. While I'm here, my preference would be to trim the Hancock and Bauval section William M. Connolley (talk) 11:39, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you Mr Connelley for intervening. I am not an experienced editor, but the Sphinx is a topic I do know quite a bit about, and I am hoping to improve this article considerably by adding a number of additional provable facts. My first step was to correct existing errors and contradictions, and to prepare a foundation. Because a lot of small changes were needed to improve the flow of the text, including just rearranging existing lines, I write the section in full on a word-processor and import it, rather than changing one sentence at a time and saving each one in turn, which would take a lot longer for no discernable benefit. I hope this approach is not illegal? I fully agree that an article should be as comprehensive as possible. However, it should also be correct. Some details are provable facts, and some are just opinions. Zara1709 insists on including a range of references on the Racial Characteristics section, which are mere opinions. If this is acceptable, then the opinions of Adolf Hitler and the Ku Klux Klan should be given equal standing, and I can’t believe that is appropriate. I have indeed removed “correct” material which I believed was “superfluous or badly written material”, on the basis that “Not every fact, detail, and nuance belongs in an encyclopedia.” These are the wiki rules as I understand them. However if other editors feel those lines are crucial, I am happy to live with it. I also would like to trim the Hancock and Bauval section, as I believe much of the quoted material is superfluous. However the work of Reader, Schoch and other geologists is valid scientific material, and deserves to be treated differently to the unfounded speculations of Hancock and Du Bois. I would also suggest that the Racial Characteristics section be included as an Alternative Hypothesis alongside the Hancock material, and clearly labelled as "unproven speculation", in which case the content can be treated differently without any risk of uninformed readers being mislead. Ideally some other editors who are familiar with the subject matter could critique the material and suggest a foundation version, onto which we can all build. I am not looking for a fight, but I have already been threatened with a “very disappointing experience” and an “ugly edit war” by a person who claims to have engaged in many edit wars. I did explain why I removed “referred content” – referred unfounded speculation is still unfounded speculation. Blanket reversals of valid corrections are not helpful, and waste a lot of other people’s time. I would be grateful for the guidance of other parties. Wdford (talk) 12:03, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

OK, the thing to do here is to talk not revert - which we're doing, so thats good. Secondly it would be a good idea to try to find out what area of disagreement exists. It looks to me to be over the racial characteristics section (only?). Third, it would be a good idea to avoid further extensive modifications just for the moment.

In the racial characteristics, it occurs to me to wonder why the opinions of 19thC travellers are particularly valuable. They didn't see anything we don't now see William M. Connolley (talk) 12:16, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Agreed in full. However if the racial characteristics section was moved to be under Alternative Hypotheses, then that matter would be resolved, and we could focus on adding knowledge to the rest of the article while the actual content of the racial characteristics section is fine-tuned over time by those who feel strongly about those issues.

Perhaps a full-scale article on Afrocentrism, including actual examples and detailed references, would be a good idea as well? Wdford (talk) 12:25, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Something like... Afrocentrism perhaps? William M. Connolley (talk) 12:36, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the tutorial - just finished reading it. There is already an Afrocentrism article, but I saw a label saying it was about the history of Afrocentrism and should exclude actual examples. If we could change that to include examples then there would be a proper outlet for this point of view.

The Sphinx article is currently undergoing a major edit - is that you? Wdford (talk) 12:59, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

No, that's me. I am restoring the material that you deleted, while keeping you other edits....Zara1709 (talk) 13:15, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, if the current revision is acceptable to Wdford, I would leave it there. I don't feel like writing anything more at the moment. Zara1709 (talk) 13:30, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

There are some grammer issues I would like to address, and a general re-write of the Hancock section would be helpful to the uninitiated reader. Wdford (talk) 13:38, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

I have rewritten the Hancock section, making it much shorter, as all of this info is already described in much detail in a separate article. I included the reference specifically. I also cleaned up several other sections, without deleting any facts, and moved the images etc to the end. If all are happy with this, then we can start to add fresh extra details. Wdford (talk) 15:41, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Water Erosion Debate

The final paragraph, about the carving of the head, does not really belong in the Water Erosion Debate, but rather in the Origins and Identity section. Schoch's point is valid, but all he can conclude is that the face/smaller head was carved after the main body. It does not, of itself, lend support to the water erosion argument, but is important in determining the relationship between the identity of the Sphinx (Khafra, Khufu or otherwise) and the original date of construction, namely that the construction preceded the carving of the face.

In any event, it is illogical to conclude from the smaller head alone that the Sphinx was weathered by water erosion and can therefore be palaeoclimatologically dated to before 10,000 BCE. If it was carved later than the body (as many agree), any erosion affecting the main body would be missing. Furthermore, if the traditional dating of the Sphinx (the reign of Khafra, 2520-2492 BCE) is correct, the smaller head could still have been carved centuries or millennia later, as there is no evidence one way or the other about the appearance of the Sphinx's face until the Late Period/Classical antiquity (from 664 BCE onwards). gergis (talk) 15:17, 23 December 2008 (UTC)