Talk:Cheikh Anta Diop

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
Photo request It is requested that a picture or pictures of this person be included in this article to improve its quality.
Maintenance An appropriate infobox may need to be added to this article, or the current infobox may need to be updated. Please refer to the list of biography infoboxes for further information.
Africa
Africa Portal
This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Africa, which collaborates on articles related to Africa in Wikipedia. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details.
Start This article has been rated as Start-class on the quality scale.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
Assessment comments

The following paragraph was put on the main article page by Kemkem (talk · contribs). I've moved it here where it belongs. - ulayiti (talk) 01:29, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Of course, it is necessary to put a link of opponents to Diop. However, the previous link is deceitful since only 1/5 of its content is related to Diop! The major part of the link criticises (legitimately) the stupid, irrelevant and counterproductive exaggerations of advocators of Black Athena. Anyway, the link is irrelevant since it was not the core of the work of Diop. Please, find a new link less polemic and only about the work of Anta Diop not one that is mixing everything. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Kemkem (talk • contribs) .

Error of a newbie sorry for it. Anyway, facts have not changed and I really don't think that the last link is relevant. We definitely need a link of an opponent but not one with only two sentences against Diop (and about the most controversial of these books) among more than 200 lines! It is not about the core of the work of Diop. Kemkem (talk · contribs)

Contents

[edit] Many Problems

The work of Arthur Jensen should not be highlighted on this page. He is in no way an authority on race as an anthropological or genetically based concept. He specializes in educational psychology and psychometrics in the United States, and has contributed “nothing” to Genetics, Anthropology or Archeology.

Further, there is no evidence that Sub-Saharan Africans were unable to migrate outside of that region. Both Mali and Niger find themselves in the Sahara region, while the majority of their populations are visibly Africoid (some of the darkest people on earth). Migration up from Sub-Saharan Africa has occured since the first men left the continent. There has also been long established trade between Africans from all parts of the Continent dating back to prehistory.

Sickle-cell anemia, so often thought of as an African disease, while it reaches high frequencies in some parts of sub-Saharan Africa, it did not originate there. Its distribution includes southern Italy, the eastern Mediterranean, parts of the Middle East, and over into India. It would appear that the gene that controls that trait was introduced to sub-Saharan Africa by traders from those parts of the Middle East where it had arisen in conjunction with the conditions created by the early development of agriculture.

The term “Negroid” and “Caucasoid” are also misleading and have been formally discarded by Anthropology. Indeed, the term Caucasoid attempts to group geographically, cultural, ethnically, and historically divergent groups into one board homogeneous one. For example, Semites and Indo-Europeans share virtually no relationship with one another either historically or in ethnic terms. Indeed, the one trait shared by these groups is simply a nose that is neither Negro nor Mongoloid.

[edit] Article is garbage

Celebration of racialist nutcase Diop is not going to be tolerated.

At best a hack. At worst a bitterly racist loon. Wheatabix 13:28, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

The University of Dakar is named after him. The UNESCO has chosen him as one of the editors of its History of Africa. I think these two facts show that he is more than a "nutcase" or a "crackpot" as you say. Unless you are a greater authority than the UNESCO or the University of Dakar.
The article as it is, including your latest modifications which removed some biased remarks (except for the equally-biased word "crackpot" that should be replaced by something else), doesn't seem too bad to me. Of course I would like to see more explanations about his theories and about the arguments of the people who don't agree with him, but the article is not particularly biased. Thbz 14:26, 8 February 2006 (UTC)


Why Wheatabix have you deleted some sentences that can balance this article? Does it bother you that some of the last archaelogical discoveries of this decade can confirm a part of the work of Diop? Are you agains facts? --Kemkem 21:28, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

The problem is that this paragraph is not very clear. How exactly do Charles Bonnet's discoveries about Kerma "shed some light" upon Diop's theories? Apparently, Bonnet says that Kerma was a black kingdom with a brilliant culture which leaders rules over Egypt for a while (XXVth dynasty). This is very different from saying that Egypt as a whole was black and that its culture owes a lot to Black African culture. I think the paragraph should be rewritten in a way or another because it's not clear and the links to Kerma and Blombos cave don't help much since they say nothing about Diop. Thbz 23:17, 8 February 2006 (UTC)


OK I get it. It has surely to be improved (but not deleted!). "shed some light" is maybe not the good phrase. Diop was one of the first scientist to assume existence of black civilizations when history was highly biased by racism. Kerma or Blombo's discoveries give some credit to the "essence" of the Diop's theories. It is not a detail! Diop's ideas have had a great heuristic power even if there are many mistakes in these works. --Kemkem 03:16, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Nothing will get done this way. Use of anti-intellectual, inflammatory terms like "loon" and such are a complete waste of time. --149.10.196.227 19:02, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] RE: Diop A Hack

If he was such a hack, then why was his work only critized and never proven wrong by the "scholars?" Why did he shut everybody up at UNESCO in 1974? Doesn't sound like much of a hack to me!

[edit] Tone of page, sources

  • The UNESCO 1974 section reeks of bias and has very little content. Can someone with knowledge of this please either rewrite it or remove it? Rjhatl 00:52, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
Done (much shorter version as part of the biography). Thbz 23:32, 17 May 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Question

  • In 1951, Diop submitted a PhD thesis at the University of Paris where he argued that ancient Egypt had in fact been a black African culture. The thesis was rejected, but it was published in 1955 as a book titled Nations nègres et culture ('Negro nations and culture'), proving very successful and making him one of the most controversial historians of his time. He made three further attempts to gain his doctorate, finally succeeding in 1960.

The above text is from the article. Doesn't the fact that he succeeded in gaining his doctorate in 1960 mean that the PhD committee at the University of Paris ultimately accepted his thesis that ancient egypt was a Black African culture? Pihanki 18:51, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

No, of course not. When the University accepts the thesis, it recognizes that the author has provided good arguments to his findings, that his ideas deserve to be discussed, but it does not mean that the University agrees with all these ideas. Besides the jury gave him the doctorate with "mention honorable" only (most students receive at least "mention très honorable"). Thbz 20:21, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Hmmmm...interesting...so can you tell me what it means when a university awards a Ph.D and most students receive at least a "mention très honorable" but a gentleman who writes a thesis that is about the Black African identity of ancient Egypt, a thesis which contained ideas that 'deserve to be discussed,' as you said, he receives a "mention honorable?" My point to all this is suggesting that the passage needs to be re-written.Pihanki 23:21, 14 August 2006 (UTC) Pihanki 23:21, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

The student receives a Ph.D with "mention honorable", "mention très honorable" or "mention honorable avec félicitations" (honorable, very honorable, very honorable with congratulations) (cf. fr:Doctorat). The jury was probably not convinced by Diop's ideas and methods. A doctorate with "mention honorable" has a very little value, and a student cannot become a professor in a French university with such a doctorate (maybe the jury gave him that mention because they did not want Diop to be a professor). The Bogdanoff brothers, who made television shows about science, recently obtained a doctorate with "mention honorable": everybody laughed. Why do you think that the passage need to be re-written? Can you make a proposal? Thbz 07:25, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes. I'm glad you asked. It just seemed to me like the passage was written in such a way as to separate his thesis that Egypt was a Black civilization, from his actually having obtained a Ph.D. Although POV criticisms of scholars or universities have no place in the article, this talk page is the forum in which to express how ridiculous the idea that scholars at the University of Paris could systematically ignore, destroy and obfuscate evidence of the racial identity of the ancient Egyptians if it didn’t match their worldview for years, but their perspectives can still be considered to be high quality scholarship. I wanted to approach this on the talk page before just making an edit, to see if we could get to some sort of consensus. Why don’t we change it to:

“In 1951, Diop submitted a PhD thesis at the University of Paris where he argued that ancient Egypt had in fact been a black African culture. The thesis was rejected, but over the next nine years, Diop reworked the thesis, adding stronger evidentiary support, and in 1960, he succeeded in the defense of his thesis and was awarded the Ph.D. degree. Five years earlier, the thesis was published in the popular press as a book titled Nations nègres et culture ('Negro nations and culture'), proving very successful and making him one of the most controversial historians of his time.”

I’m open to suggestions or improvements, but I’ve read enough Diop to understand that an accurate page about him must include the idea of the racial identity of the ancient Egyptians being the thesis which was accepted when he obtained his Ph.D. At the time, the acceptance of such a thesis was quite revolutionary.Pihanki 23:10, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

I think it's already obvious in the article that he received a PhD for a thesis that Egypt was a Black civilization, but your proposal may be even clearer, so I have nothing against it. Thbz 07:11, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Comment

I think this article was written horribly. I have a couple of points to make, so pay attention:

1. It makes no mention of HOW Dr. Diop got his thesis the third time, how he went in with an array of anthropologists, linguists, archaelogists, etc., in other words EXPERTS. This needs to be mentioned.

2. I have a problem with the particular sentence in the article: "In this work, he claimed that archaeological and anthropological evidence supports his Afrocentric view of the Pharaohs being of Negroid origin. The academic world as a whole does not accept Diop's theories, but they continue to raise important questions about the cultural bias inherent in scientific research." Um, pharaonic civilization being of african (and thus "negroid") origin is not accepted by the academic community?! I guess SO Keita, Wendorf, Frankfort and pretty much every other accredited egyptologist and archaeologist that credits the rise of dynastic egypt to the cumulation of economic, social, and political evolution in the southern (READ African) part of the country doesn't count huh? This article has been hijacked by internet jackpots and ideologues.

3. Why does the article demonize the man as a crackpot? The man was a scientist and pioneer, and is regarded as such by many of the academic community. Christ.

Got problems? Talk to me. Peace.

Teth22

I will answer your three points:
1. Feel free to add information about how he got his doctorate. But don't forget to mention that he only had "mention honorable", which is only awarded in France to thesis that are much less good than the average (in the eye of the University, of course).
2. You may add these reference and explain how they relate exactly to Diop's theories. It's even better if you can point to Internet-available resources written by these researchers. And it's even better if they explicitly mention they agree with Diop, since this article is about Cheikh Anta Diop, not about Afrocentrism as a whole.
3. All the pro-Diop say that this article demonizes him. All the anti-Diop say that the article divinizes him. The article presents both points of view and should not lose that quality. Thbz 13:19, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
Okay, Thbz, so what if his professors weren't jumping in joy over his thesis, what constitutes a "good thesis" can be very subjective, maybe they couldn't accept that Egyptian civilization came from the south? *gasp*. (even now white people can't accept that, as it seems in your case) As I mentioned before, scholars and egyptologists, "afrocentric" or not, agree with Diop's BASIC premise: that Egyptian civilization, whether it be linguistically, culturally, or religiously, has it origins in pre-dynastic AFRICAN upper egypt, which anthropologist SO Keita has shown plotted with Nubians craniometrically. Show me one credible source or study that refutes this, pleeeease, I dare you. Peace. Teth22 14:44, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
You jump to conclusions. What makes you think I'm white? Because I hesitate about the value to give to Diop's theories, I am necessarily white? I am not a specialist, therefore I believe what the specialists say. And I have hat yet to see a confirmation of Diop's theories in books published by mainstream scholars, Afrocentrists not included. For example John Iliffe in Africans: History of a Continent mentions that the first Egyptian agricultural civilization, in the IVth millenium, was afro-mediterranean (i.e non-Black; later he mentions explicitly Diop to refute his theory that Egypt transmitted its civilization to the rest of the continent). Maybe Iliffe is not a good source, maybe the research has produced other results. Ok, so modify the article as long as you provide sources . And I will accept it without any hesitation (yes, I'm white, but no, I don't have a problem with the idea that Black people may have created Egypt and civilization; BTW, if you convinced all the white people in the world that the civilization was invented by Black African people, do you really think that it would change the way they look at Africa now?) Thbz 19:56, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
Another thing: the debate has taken place on Afrocentrism and Controversy over racial characteristics of Ancient Egyptians. If you modify the Diop page, please ensure that it's coherent with the other two pages (or modify them if they contain errors). Thbz 20:01, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
Um, oookay. About that John Iliffe book, IS not a good source. The Egyptian neolithic (or the beginning of agricultural period) was the result of indigenous peoples incorporating asian grains and foods and methods into an already INDIGENOUS subsistence system. Further, the man makes the eurocentric mistake of labeling only West Africans "Negroid" and labels north east africans, even ancient ones "afro-mediterranean", such as ancestral afroasiatic speakers. He does say that Egypt was an "African" civilization though, read 18. oh, and Afro-Mediterranean babe doesn't mean non-black it means black mixed with mediterranean ("white") elements, get your terminology straight. And yes, I don't think that Egypt was this hyperdiffusionist vein for the rest of Africa, hell, or even most of Asia, as some past egyptologists have romanticized it to be, it's one of the few points on which I disagree with Diop, along with the society's linguistic affinities, which were Afroasiatic, and not Woloof, as the man said. Once again, show me a source that says straight up that egyptian culture, religion, and writing were imports from Asia. I await. Peace. Teth22 22:28, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
I agree with almost all you say. I never said I had sources that said that the Egyptian civilization was imported from Asia. Indeed, Iliffe says it's an African civilization. But African does not mean Negroid. On the other hand, I saw books this morning written by Bernard Nantet, who explicitly names Diop and agrees with his theory of the Negroid origin of the Egyptian civilization.
So, if you think this article should be modified, maybe you could make a proposal? Maybe it would be a good idea to make a distinction between the Negroid origin of Egypt and the influence of the Ancient Egyptian culture on the rest of Africa, and explain how each of these theories is or is not supported by mainstream scholars nowadays? The article is often too vague. Thbz 11:42, 17 August 2006 (UTC)


^Can you explain the difference between "Negroid" and the rest of Africa, and why they should be distinguished? How are West Africans considered "Negroid" to you, but not East and North? What's the difference? They're all biologically African, their features simply vary just like different places in Europe, Asia, etc, which is Diop's argument and now the position of every credible anthropologist associated with this subject and work. The "Negroid" is an obsolete term that restricted certain stereotypical sub-saharan types from other Africans, when the genetic data in its self never reflects such categories or racial boundaries. If any thing the Ancient Egyptian population at its inception was more more genetically related to the rest of Africa first, rather than anywhere else as is explained by Keita in his Y Chromosome studies. http://www.homestead.com/wysinger/African_Archaeological_Revie__June_2005_.pdf

Diop was simply right, It's time to put Egypt with in its proper context, as Egyptians were from the same branch of the "so-called" Negroids and if "Negroid" were a valid category, then Ancient Egyptians would have easily fallen into that group, as they're intermediate between so-called "Negroids" and Eurasians today even, and share the same recent historical lineages.

Egyptians were "Africoid"(Alternative term to Negroid) just like the rest of native Africa. If we're to avoid any racial approach, they are to be simply put in their proper context as another African population, akin to Ethiopians, Nubians, Somalis, etc, all considered "Black" socially. Racially, that's not a valid concept, but Diop is right speaking in social terms and genetic relationships, with out a doubt. Just check the article now, and this page too.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Africoid

"The concept of race is not based on genetics, which is a far more modern discipline, but on inexact and sometimes conflicting phenotypical categories, heredity, geography and cultural factors. Further, adjectival forms of race-related terms used to describe physical appearance commonly are conflated incorrectly to mean racial designation. For example, the term Caucasoid is confused by some with the term Caucasian. As a result, blacks and other dark-skinned peoples, paradoxically, sometimes have been called or considered "white"."


Taharqa 22:30, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Format and copyright

This article is almost a copy of the articles from the web, it needs to be better formatted and it needs to be original.--Halaqah 20:45, 19 October 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Putting back "POV"

He has been considered one of the greatest African historians of the 20th century by some, and a racialist scientist by others

This is actually true, i will tone it down.

[edit] Amaaaaaaazing.....

To whoever fixed up on the "Assessment of Diop's Thought" section, I would like to thank you for your hard and well-researched work. Why? Not only did you save me a shit load of work, you finally set the record straight (on wikipedia at least) that Diop's major theories and thesises have been PROVEN by the mainstream, and that he wasn't the racist marx worshipping crackpot that he was (and still is to some degree) demonized to be. Maybe wikipedia is filled with other people besides trolls and 40 year old pedophile losers. heh- heh just kidding. But to whom this is directed, get back to me. peace. Teth22 02:46, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Pharaoh

This refers to his nickname among those with an interest in African History. To call him preeminent is probably true and I don't have a problem with that per se, but there needs to be a way to say that without losing the nickname.Pihanki 22:55, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Alright. How about quotes around the word, and an explanation that it's an understood nickname? -- Thesocialistesq/M.Lesocialiste 11:14, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

That sounds like a good solution.Pihanki 00:30, 12 February 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Full of spelling mistakes

Africa how do you get to spell that wrong? Needs a cleanup. ASAP. that last chap looks like an essay.--Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ 22:24, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

it's still interesting how some will clingdevotedly to unrealistic idea's aboutso called "race". It has been proven that every human on the planet can be traced back to one woman out of africa, so why all the nonsense? diop is to be commended for the work . Just looking at the globe without any knowledge of science, geography, and the rest, a child can see pangea. the world looks like a puzzle that is easily put together.Humans need something to believe in something, whether its god or that having no color makes one better. The fight or should say war on people of coloris just stupid! It is clear that Diop worked very hard to prove his findings which evidence supports. 2012 is very near, I wonder if color will play a part in the demise of the world.

[edit] Afrocentric? This page is a farce.

Is it not ironic that anytime an african is found to have any formative influence on civilization, that he who has discovered it is deemed automatically afrocentric? Diop's arguments are deeply based on clear and unbiased scholarship, he himself asserted that had any other race been given the same natural pressures presented by the nile valley they would have been pushed toward similar developments. Diop knew that if any serious black scholar deviated in any manner from the strictest objective scientific scholarship that the whole line of African work, scientific, historical, cultural and otherwise would be discredited. The essence of Diop's work was not to fall into the trap of racial biases that European scholars had so ardently adhered to. The tremendous obstacles facing black scholars, particularly in the 1950's, required it, simple unsubstantial evidence would suffice to prove white, Mediterranean or any non-black origin of Egypt. However, linguistic, archaeological, cultural, bio-chemical, historical, and anthropological evidence are still insufficient to prove the African origin of Egypt? To claim that Diop is Afrocentric and that his work is somehow biased in that manner is to discredit the objective scholarship to which he dedicated his life.


I understand, but the way you went about blanking and replacing information isn't the way to go about it loved one.Taharqa 02:07, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Was my source invalid, along with the conclusions of UNESCO regarding the linguistic research? Elaborate? Please enlighten me as to the proper way to go about updating the page, so we can proceed with sorting out fact from fiction. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.60.121.13 (talk) 04:24, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The greater danger is vandals trying to water down or bury Diop's scholarship by making the page hard to read, not minor terminology

Diop is called Afrocentric by some writers. But as the article now shows many of his arguments have been validated by "mainstream" scholars. The linguistic, archaeological, cultural, bio-chemical, historical, and anthropological evidence is in place that does this. So let us not quibble on terminology.

While we quibble a greater danger is taking place- namely anonymous authors and sockpuppets seeking to remove scholarship from the page, or to load the apge with so much text that the headings are not clear and the reader cannot easily follow the arguments and research of different scholars supporting (and opposing Diop). After the sockpuppet has done his or her work, the same person or cohorts then come in and make minor edits to "lock in" the vandalism as if it were a normal, reasonable edit.

This is the dodge tried by sockpuppet "Strotha" in his/her recent edit. The method is to make the page as hard to read as possible, which serves as a subtle way to diminish the article and Diop's work. This is the greater danger, not minor terminological issues. I have reverted the vandalism of sockpuppet Strotha. See his/her page at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Strothra

Sockpuppetry case- Strotha- from user page
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Strothra
You have been accused of sockpuppetry. Please refer to Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Strothra for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with notes for the suspect before editing the evidence page.

Those working with Strotha will try the "text bury" method again to make the page hard to read and water downthe evidence being presented. Be on your guard. TupeloMiss 05:47, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Trying to discedit Diop with bogus references and quick sequence edits

Socket puppets are at it again. As usual no edit summaries are in place. Their latest dodge is to use bogus references. One puppet pulled up in this quote:

"The very latest discoveries by the Swiss archaeologist Charles Bonnet at the site of Kerma shed some light on the theories of Diop." Thereis only one problem. There are no "latest discoveries" by Charles Bonnet. Charles Bonnet (click for Wikipedia article) lived in the 1800s. The reference is clearely bogus and a blatant attempt to discredit the article. How lame. There is plenty of criticims of Diop's theories in the article as it is.

Another dodge is a series of edits in quick sequence under multiple accounts. These sequential multiple changes in fairly quick succession seek to disguise the information being removed and/or changed. Another variant is a "good user- bad user" routine.

The fact that puppets are resorting to these methods, and the fact that they keep hiding show how desperate they are to keep out or bury scholarship and scholarly methods. One wonders why they feel so threatened by the info contained herein. The game is really up.TupeloMiss 03:46, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Review WP:AGF before insulting other editors and making wild accusations. Note that removing cited information without a valid reason is vandalism. If you wish to see it removed then please prove that the reference is invalid. I have requested that the article be fully protected so that you will do this. --Strothra 04:24, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry is one thing, commenting on work you clearly have not read, entirely another. Who pays? Truth. Who advances? No one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.60.121.13 (talk) 08:04, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually there is a Swiss archealogist named Charles Bonnet, not the guy from the 1830s as suspiciously asserted above, but a contermporary guy. Bonnet did excavate Kerma, unearthing several statutes of the Nubian pharoahs. Reference to his work added to the article. And there is no need for people to tag Diop's Date of Death for a citation. That is just plain silly. No other biography article demands this level of detailed citation. Why is Diop's article held to a different standard? Adrunkman 04:03, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I must say that over the past few weeks this entry has improved tremendously, but the sections on DNA and race classification are still bothersome. One can recall that professor Diop said that race as applied in society is entirely based on phenotypes. It matters not whether the DNA of an Australian puts them closer to populations of Asia of whether genetic variability is greater within a population group as opposed to between them. The key factor is whether or not that individual is considered a black and is out casted or excluded on that basis from society. I sincerely doubt that a European would look at an aborigine or a Somali and not instinctively classify either as a black, just as the opposite is also true. One need not look far to see the blatant racial discrimination that exists today in Australia to site but one example. Why then bother to waste nearly half the entry on the topic of racial classification when it is essentially missing the point? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.60.121.13 (talk) 14:21, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Copy Edit up to Influence of Egypt

I've been working on Afrocentrism and other articles related to Diop and other thinkers. I've done some copy editing of several paragraphs here to try to clarify what was written, make it more direct, and make it clear who said what. I did not remove any sources, but toned down some unsupported language that seemed very strong POV. I changed one section header from Genetic Variability to Physical Variability, because the text did not refer to genetics but to physical appearances.--Parkwells (talk) 02:25, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Diopbookcover.jpg

Image:Diopbookcover.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 ensure 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) 13:49, 25 February 2008 (UTC)