Talk:Great Sphinx of Giza/Archive 2

message: Please work out your differences on the talk page instead of edit warring · Katefan0(scribble)/poll 01:17, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protected 

message: Neither Afrocentrism nor Eurocentrism has anything to do with the ethnicity of the sphinx itself. Where the hell in this article has anything been said about Afrocentrism?  And who are the "Afrocentric" historians being quoted?"  This is utter bull -- and a classic example of the way Wikipedia works to reinforce the lies perpetrated by Eurocentrists.  And the usual, throwaway disclaimer about how the page protection doesn't "endorse" one view or another is just pro forma.  The fact is the page is frozen in the version that is unencyclopedic, POV and decidedly not the consensus of the current editors.  Deeceevoice 06:16, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: The Afrocentrism/anti-Afrocentrism argument is utterly irrelevant here

message: The information presented about the ethnicity of the image itself is that it has been described as decidedly "Negroid" throughout history.  Some of those accounts are presented in the article and cited.  The image also has been analyzed by one of the most well-known (at the time) forensics artists in the U.S., utilizing his professional expertise and computer graphics to reconstruct the head.  Further, a noted and well-published Harvard professor in orthodontics has concurred in the forensic artist's findings, as well as supported the means by which those findings were reached.  Both accounts were printed in the New York Times. These things are not disputed.  This information has been presented in a perfectly dispassionate manner and sourced.
The information about the appearance of the Giza sphinx belongs with other, similar information about the sphinx's appearance.  It is not a "theory," and certainly not an "alternative theory," such as are the matters of water erosion, "lost civilizations," et cetera.  The information, again, springs from objective observation and careful, even scientific, analysis and deduction.
Those who have sought to place the information under the subhead "Alternative theories" have done so with clearly POV motivations and have advanced absolutely no credible rationale for their position.  The arguments about Afrocentrism are merely a smokescreen.  There is nothing Afrocentric about the information presented in the article; it is objective and indisputable.  From a purely journalistic point of view, the information clearly belongs elsewhere. It's a no-brainer. Again, even if those who have opposed the inclusion of this information from the beginning manage to produce credible, sourced, scientific information which says the Giza sphinx is not the image of a black man, that information still would not belong under "Alternative theories."  This matter, again, is all about what the monument looks like -- its description.
IMO, the request for page protection was utterly disingenuous.  It was made by User:That Guy, From That Show! -- after he agreed to what he termed a "compromise" here, on this very page -- and with absolutely no indication that such was his intent.  Such an action was clearly, IMO, in bad faith.  User:Zerida's subsequent arbitrary and disruptive revert easily could have been dealt with without resorting to such a measure.
The fact that the article has been frozen in its current unencyclopedic and POV state is, IMO, emblematic of the anti-black bias of this website when it comes to such matters.  I have not used this term on this page before, but I will use it now.  Wikipedia is racist to the core.  This is a perfect object lesson in how its systemic bias works.  When obstructionist elements cannot refute objective information, they work to label it, mischaracterize it, smear it.  "Afrocentrism" is one of those red herrings that gets tossed around a lot here.  This is unmitigated bull -- and emblematic of the racist dysfunctionality of this website.  And this is supposed to be an encyclopedia -- and one that Jimbo Wales wrote in his funds appeal that he wants to make available to children in Africa?  ROTFLMAO.  *x*  Deeceevoice 06:38, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah yes, the The Wrong Version. — Matt Crypto 08:08, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Deeceevoice, do not alter the above post again. The link is a concise and appropriate rebuttal to your assertion that the protection of this page was somehow, *cough*, "emblamatic of the racist disfunctionality of this site", or that it shows how Wikipedia is "racist". Furrfu. — Matt Crypto 22:09, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Good grief, Deeceevoice, how can you have posted the grandparent comment and then have the audacity to tell me that: "if it's not constructive, adds nothing to the discussion and inflames tensions, then keep it to yourself"? Did you ever considering following your own advice? You made the very grave — and extremely inflammatory — accusation that the page protection was a racist act, and therefore the entire website is "racist". As usual with such charges about page protection, it's obvious nonsense: the protecting admin just protected whatever page he or she came across, and nothing more sinister. You typically make implausible leaps of reasoning that suit your worldview: e.g. "admin protects page at a version I don't like" = "Wikipedia is racist", "people file RfCs and RfArs when I don't follow Wikiquette" = "Wikipedia is racist" or "Jimbo deletes my obscene and offensive userpage = "Wikipedia is unable to answer my charge of racist bias", etc etc. It's very sad that you view Wikipedia through the lens of racism. I'm sure Wikipedia does have much work to do to become NPOV in the area of race, but you see bogeymen in the wrong places. — Matt Crypto 08:00, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

text: "You're a white adolescent": I don't see what my age or skin colour has to do with this. Don't make racist attacks; I've blocked you for a week. (I see you've changed your comment slightly; still, my skin colour has nothing to do with anything. Nor does my age or gender, of course). Imagine if I'd said to some editor, "you're just some old black guy, what do you know?". This is unacceptable. (My renewed adolescence is happy news to me, of course: I'm 26, as is stated my user page). — Matt Crypto 08:22, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Racism, systemic bias and where we stand