Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Ancient Egypt and race

message: 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)
thread_title:  Disruption 

message: *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)
thread_title:  things I request from Taharqa 

message: 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  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  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 .
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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Input from about a year's perspective.