Talk:Beachy Head Lady

Revert 20 July 2022

@Drmies: Please explain why you reverted the edits by Mr Miles.

And what on earth do you mean by ‘whitewashing’?

Sweet6970 (talk) 13:34, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

• "What on earth", really? Removing "was assumed to have originated from Sub-Saharan Africa", which was well-verified and a very relevant element in the history of discovery, is a kind of whitewashing. Removing a published book called Black and British: a Forgotten History is another instance. Drmies (talk) 14:23, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

Please answer my questions.

‘was assumed to have originated from Sub-Saharan Africa’ is not actually correct. There was not an assumption – it was an assessment based on the shape of the skull. This assessment was contradicted by the DNA evidence. So – the assessment was correctly reported at the time, but the assessment itself was incorrect. The previous version, before your revert, gives a much more accurate account of the actual current expert view on this.

Yes – ‘what on earth’? Really. What on earth can this mean, except that you are accusing another editor of racism, for improving an article about a dead person who, according to the current expert evidence, was white?

Sweet6970 (talk) 14:42, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

Please don't mix up bullet points and colons. If you want to wage a semantic war over "assessment" vs. "assumption", go ahead, but it will be one-sided since I have no interest in this conversation with you. Drmies (talk) 15:28, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

Regarding bullet points and colons: in my experience, it is normal to use colons on Talk pages.

If you have no interest in this conversation, then presumably you have no objection if I revert the article to the previous, superior, version (?)

Sweet6970 (talk) 15:33, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

No, it is normal to be consistent. See Wikipedia:Colons and asterisks. Yes, I do object, since you will be removing important and well-verified material. A mistaken assumption can still have encyclopedic value, but there is nothing in your comments that addressed the actual relevance. And a "superior version" cannot be one in which there is a reference to a source named Olusoga, but the book itself has been excised, with the obviously false edit summary "Removed bibliography not relevant to this subject". Drmies (talk) 15:38, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

The revert I propose would not delete ‘important and well-verified material’ – the version by Mr Miles includes the statement: Initially, the skull shape led to a claim the woman had originated from Sub-Saharan Africa[4] leading some sources, including a book, to claim erroneously that she had been the first known person of sub-Saharan origin in Britain. This is correct and informative. It is important that the article makes clear that the initial mistake has been amplified by repetition. It would presumably be possible to add back inf about the Olusoga book into the reference space.

And if an edit summary is incorrect, that cannot affect whether the wording of the article is correct.

You are in a minority, and you appear to be saying that you do not want to engage in discussion on the Talk page about the wording of an article. As you must know, it is the normal procedure on Wikipedia for any disputed change to an article to be discussed on the Talk page.

Sweet6970 (talk) 15:54, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

Agree with your points here, perhaps you can revert and adjust as you see fit? Many thanks Mr Miles (talk) 10:48, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

Will do – probably tomorrow. Sweet6970 (talk) 11:46, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. Just to explain, I removed Olusoga from the bibliography because a book on the subject Black and British seemed immaterial to an article about the remains of a white British woman - the DNA findings rendering the book irrelevant to Beachy Head Woman despite Olusoga including her in his book - and misleading. Mr Miles (talk) 14:00, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

Drmies and a group of other editors didn't like my questioning, on the talk page, the intro to the article Trans woman, and have since gone through several of my other edits and reverted them. I doubt Drmies has any interest in Beachy Head Lady beyond that. The accusation of racism is noted. Hope that answers your question, many thanks. Mr Miles (talk) 10:45, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

I criticised Drmies for accusing you of racism without grounds. An accusation without supporting evidence is considered a ‘personal attack’, for which an editor may be blocked from editing. WP:NPA Your remarks (e.g. ‘vexatiously’ and ‘ad hominem’) might also be considered personal attacks. You might wish to strike them out. Sweet6970 (talk) 11:48, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice Mr Miles (talk) 14:02, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

Question, should this article still be apart of the African diaspora project; considering it is not connected to Africa?Halbared (talk) 14:09, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

I would say not, the original gf article was mostly likely written before the DNA evidence was reported. Mr Miles (talk) 14:55, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

I'll explain this one more time, slowly. There was a thought. It was written up in reliable sources, including a BBC article and a monograph published by a reliable publisher. That the thought was subsequently proven wrong doesn't make the initial thought unimportant from an encyclopedic point of view; we are not going to go through Ape and remove everything that was incorrectly thought in previous centuries. The book Black and British: a Forgotten History is obviously relevant since at the time of its publication the Beachy Head Lady was thought to be of Sub-Saharan descent.

And here is another thing, Mr Miles. You doubt I have any interest in the topic? That's a pretty sad attempt at a blow below the belt. I think you have edited a total of 43 articles; in the field of prehistoric human life I have thousands of article edits and dozens of article creations; Cova Foradà, Cueva de Bolomor, El Salt were on the front page. I don't feel the need to convince you of my credentials or my interest here, but there will be others who will look at this talk page, and I don't want your accusation to be unchallenged. Oh, Sweet6970, I accused the editor of whitewashing. That is a comment about their edit, not about them as a person. Doug Weller, I know you have an interest in the science of human history--I'd appreciate your opinion here. Drmies (talk) 14:58, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

This has already been explained to you, please read the posts by Sweet6970 which explain everything you need to know about the revert: "The assessment based on the shape of the skull...was contradicted by the DNA evidence. So – the assessment was correctly reported at the time, but the assessment itself was incorrect. The previous version, before your revert, gives a much more accurate account of the actual current expert view on this. The revert I propose would not delete ‘important and well-verified material’ – the version by Mr Miles includes the statement: Initially, the skull shape led to a claim the woman had originated from Sub-Saharan Africa leading some sources, including a book, to claim erroneously that she had been the first known person of sub-Saharan origin in Britain. This is correct and informative. It is important that the article makes clear that the initial mistake has been amplified by repetition."

Drmies [1] Your statement: "I was just looking at Mr Miles' talk page, and that led me to the whitewashing on Beachy Head Lady". I think the others that look at this talk page will clearly see the reasons for your sudden interest in Beachy Head Lady. Mr Miles (talk) 15:24, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

I'll explain this one more time, slowly… etc. comes across as patronising.

As I have already said above, the version you reverted includes the inf that the skull was originally thought to show sub-Saharan ancestry. There is also room for a mention of the book – which, if it says that the Beachy Head Lady was of sub-Saharan African descent, is wrong.

By the way, I hope you weren’t intending to suggest that any of the participants on this Talk page have more resemblance to apes than any other members of homo sapiens (?)

Sweet6970 (talk) 15:34, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

If there is "room" for mention of the book, then you disagree with Mr Miles--good. Drmies (talk) 15:37, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

No, I do not disagree with Mr Miles on this point. Mr Miles and I have just referred you to my previous post. Please read it. Sweet6970 (talk) 15:44, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

The only point we may disagree on is whether to include Black and British in the bibliography. I've explained my position but am happy to defer to yours Sweet6970. Mr Miles (talk) 15:52, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

Mr Miles – it may transpire that we disagree on other things. But my aim is always to reach agreement by civil discussion on the Talk page. Sweet6970 (talk) 15:59, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

I have now amended the article. Sweet6970 (talk) 09:54, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

I think this is a fair description, of updated info.Halbared (talk) 11:05, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

I added back to the lead a brief note of the original presumption. I came to the article after reading Olusoga's book and was very confused with the article's lead assertion about the origins in Cyprus. Trying to read the rest of the text didn't clarify things for me, especially as the sources seemed to be contradicting each other. The most reliable (although still unclear) source I could find was the update to Jo Seaman's article which notes the new DNA finding.

A second point which may be worth adding, is that Olusoga's revised edition has removed the paragraphs referring to the Beachy Head Lady. —Caorongjin 💬 00:45, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

I am deleting the reference to the error in the lead. This is only a short article, and the error is referred to in the body. Since she does not have DNA from sub-Saharan Africa, there should not be any reference to this in the lead – she is not notable for what she is not.

Do you have a suitable source for the removal by Mr Olusoga?

Sweet6970 (talk) 14:51, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

I’m not sure I agree with that, because most of its notability is around the mistaken identity. Thats’s what Google tells me anyhow. Nevertheless, that’s fine. I did restore some of my edits as it includes a more reliable reference and a note about the DNA finding in the main body which wasn’t there before.

Re: the book, no direct source I simply have looked at both editions of the book. I own the old edition and have an e-copy through the library of the new one. —Caorongjin 💬 21:33, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

I couldn’t see an easy way of preserving some of your edits, whilst reversing others. I’ve made a couple of copy edits, and I’m now happy with the article. Thanks. Sweet6970 (talk) 10:16, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

I agree with other editors that the 'African diaspora' banner is inappropriate for this article, and I have deleted it. Sweet6970 (talk) 13:05, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

DNA of the Lady

To the IP: The source refers to the DNA at the end – see the footnote. You should self-revert. And referring to ‘liars’ is unhelpful and disruptive. Sweet6970 (talk) 12:32, 25 April 2023 (UTC)