Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Ancient Egypt and race

Mediation location is at Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Ancient Egypt and race/mediation

Disruption

I didn't want to add my self as a participant because I'm really not. I was an outside observer (I've been watching the page for some time) and I'm the one that recommeeded outside medation or the seeking of a third opinion. This is not just a content dispute but a personal disagreement that has changed into a disruptive animosity at an insane level. Some of the issues that I recommended this on:

Both parties have edit warred and violated and been blocked for 3RR.
Neither editor trusts the other and constant dispute has lead to disruption.
Confusion regarding marterial being added or removed based soley on actual page size.
Misunderstanding or ignoring of WP:OWN, WP:POINT, WP:V, WP:NPOV and WP:NPA.

I'm worried that if this goes past mediation it will result in blocks. These editors need to find a way to work together or they need to stay away from pages arre edited by the other. I hope that with some medation this can be brought to a low boil and they can again learn to live with each other without the personal attacks, edit warring and 3RR violations. I have alot of concern about how the article is turning out as well as right now alot of it reads like a back and forth POV soapbox. NeoFreak 15:48, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My only concern is that outside observers may have a perception of perspiring events that are not truly accurate and seems to give equal weight to both combatants as if there isn't one who can be singled out as an antagonist, and another as a frustrated, fairly new editor. I believe anyone who's really been there from day one when I first came, and look at the way the article was in concern to information, and how it is now, and where the source of the back and fourth POV seems to come from will know what I truly mean. I strongly believe deeply that with out me the page would have been a disaster and I can provide people who's been there since the day I first showed up to vouch, or one can check the "history" and see the diff. Neo Freak pops in and out and plays the role of judge and catches violations when he can which I feel isn't sufficient enough for truly valuable input, therefore he's not a reliable source of information in concern to the root of what's going on imho.Taharqa 01:24, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

things I request from Taharqa

That she learn the difference between vandalism and edit warring.
That she she avoids personal attacks.
That she backs up her claims when asked to.
That she not remove the NPOV and accuracy templates from the page while there is a debate going on between us.
That she not doctor sources to argue her case.
And most importantly assume good faith.

In exchange, I promise to do all of that as well, and already have been, in my view. --Urthogie 17:51, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ironically everything you've requested from me here, I and other have requested from you for ages.Taharqa 02:18, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Input from about a year's perspective.

I've been on wikipedia for about a year now, and one of the first things that I (foolishly) did was stick my foot into this self same article sometime last august. It gave me more wikistress than just about any article I've ever tried to edit before. I left quickly, and this has since become a far different article, however I kept watching. As a result of watching the Afrocentrist-Mainline Egyptology dispute for this long, I have a few observations that may help straigten out this situation and perhaps set precident in this debate so this stuff doesn't happen again.

The heavy hitters are not present in this mediation, and no longer edit the page. People think these two can't see eye to eye? You've got nothing compared to the fights and spite and hostility that have gone on before on that page. Take this opportunity, with no real incindiary personages present, to perhaps finally reconcile the parties who bicker over this page so somthing profitable finally occurs.
The editors in this dispute have goals for this article not necesarraly in line with wikipedia's goals. They seem to be more concerned that this article be persuasive to their own POV than actually be helpful and informative. Sitting them down and making them really consider what would be necesarry for this to become a featured article, and then making sure they pursue that would be a good start.
It is not too much to ask, I believe, that wikipedia not be an Egyptological laughingstock. Egyptology treats this entire topic, and the afrocentrist arguments, mostly with disdain. Examine the Oxford Encyclopedia of Ancient Egypt's articles on "Race" and "Interpretation of Evidence" for one rather terse example, or Shaw and Nicholson's Dictionary of Ancient Egypt's "Race" for a more diplomatic example. In the article's current form, it contains numerous instances wherein statements of fact are simply not in agreement with the Egyptological position. I brought up several on the talk page and did not recieve the warmest of welcomes, though to her credit, it was an anon and not Taharqa who was being particulaly rude.

I do not approve of Urthogie's edit warring, and he apparently is seeking after his own POV being dominant as well, however I have particular concerns about Taharqa's behavior which worry me. First, experience shows that the typical afrocentrist argument style on wikipedia is to redefine "Reliable source" to "The most reliable source which supports my opinion." Accordingly, dissenting opinions are considered automatically fallacious. Taharqa has exhibited this behavior on at least one occasion, here [1] deleting a statement in a book by Donald Redford, the Preeminent Egyptologist in the western hemisphere, because it she viewed it as wrong. That book has recieved extensive acclaim by scholar and layperson alike, and reviewed positivly in numerous journals, but apparently that isn't enough for it to not be "fallacious." Second, here [2] she disseminates literature of a controversial nature specifically for the sake of arguing a POV, which cannot be healthy in trying to defuse a controversial topic. Thirdly, she has a tendancy to believe that she knows everything, informing people that disagree with her that they are "wrong" or "confused," as if they just don't understand, like this [3].

This dispute cannot be resolved until all parties involved stop seeking that it be persuasive to their own views, but instead seek that it be an accurate summary of who argues what and why. Thanatosimii 19:34, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I will state my POV openly: I am trying to create a page which does not have a Eurocentric or Afrocentric bias, but rather a bias towards mainstream science.--Urthogie 20:33, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

--

If I may present my two cents, as the provider of the third opinion that Urthogie requested regarding the "Senu" section of the article (see the "section OR" section of the talk page for my opinions about that).

I have never contributed to the article, but since offering my opinion I have been keeping a watchful eye on the page and related discussion. I have witnessed sockpuppetry and edit warring from both sides, and I find the overall state of the article to be rather poor and moving in the wrong direction; it mainly consists of direct quotations from a variety of reliable and unreliable sources, with no coherent conclusions. Neither editor seems to be working toward improving the article's quality; as Thanatosimii opined, both are just working toward their own POV. Perhaps one of this POVs is the accepted modern view, but it is not clear which one from the editors' behavior and contributions.

With that in mind, I do not think mediation over specific issues will solve anything. There have been about 1250 edits since January, most of them by one of the two editors in question, and you can see the result. Although I try to assume good faith, at this point it seems clear that neither party is interested in bringing the article up to Wikipedia's standards. I would encourage both editors to cease contributing to the page in hopes that a more neutral editor might bring the article in line with the modern conclusions of anthropology and Egyptology.

AndyR 02:05, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have recently put in the effort to remove the blockquotes and replace with summaries. Please tell me what you think.--Urthogie 02:38, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Andy, while I agree with almost everything you've said I have to say the big difference in opinion I have is that I haven't seen sock puppetry with Urthogie and he doesn't seem to be having the same issues with the extensive work he's done outside of this article. Taharqa on the onther hand is a nearly single purpose account with almost no work done outside of this article. NeoFreak 11:43, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It truly disgusts me deeply in the core that I come here as an editor to be accused constantly, mainly by Thanatosimii of Afrocentrism or providing "Afrocentric" arguments(he's the only one who's ever even brought that word to the convo).. Such accusations and seeming bias towards me and Afrocentrism(his definition) seems to expose opposite motivations on his/her part, as he/she sees to define me in this way when I've never proclaimed such an ideology. I feel as if he's almost subjected me to harassment with these endless personal attacks and addresses to me exclusively during conversation with things that are usually irrelevant to the article and deals with me personally, and clutters the pages with his/her POV with out contribution. Neo Freak again, hasn't been around and basically contributes little besides catching occasional personal attacks and giving his/her opinion. I feel singled out as a black sheep, even though my fellow editors who actually contribute and have been there besides Urthogie do not feel this way at all. What makes me "Afrocentric and this endless display of bias not Eurocentric? All one needs to do is stop looking directly at the edit summary and passing themselves off as an exert on what's going on, and read through the talk page, Urthogie disputes every single entry that I contribute, every one, how is that productive? This is where the contention lies, his disapproval, not mine, just go and see and stop assuming (that goes to whoever).http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Ancient_Egypt_and_race Taharqa 01:38, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]