User talk:Deeceevoice

User talk:Deeceevoice/Archive 1 User talk:Deeceevoice/Archive 2 User talk:Deeceevoice/Archive 3 User talk:Deeceevoice/Archive 4

Cultural appropriation and that old sense of white entitlement/ownership

Funny. What Crypto calls a "personal attack" I consider callin' a spade a spade. :p Gee, don't know, El_C. I haven't been back to look. I do know the "article" ain't worth squat since he gutted it. (Funny. He didn't seem to have a problem with the other stuff before I refused to trade opinions on cultural appropriation with him. :p (Boo-hoo) User:deeceevoice 13:48, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Please do look into those changes; I'll try to do so, too (but I'll need help). If you think it would be wortwhile to do so, that is. El_C 15:10, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

I took a quick look/skimmed. Pretty pathetic that much of what the adolescent cites as unsupported is simply about obvious supporting information which is ridiculously common common knowledge. Again, no effort expended whatsoever, no knowledge brought to bear. Just wholesale obliteration. I won't provide the clear and obvious examples/citations even here, because it would be contributing indirectly to the article. And I'm not doin' it anymore. Let Wikipedia stay ignorant, white/West-skewed and virtually completely worthless when addressing black/African subject matter. The antagonism and racism of this website virtually guarantee it will remain so. And I'm done with it. I'll write what I know elsewhere, without the incessant antagonism and nattering, impatient criticism of the ignorant -- yet highly opinionated -- ill-informed.

Speaking frankly, virtually any savvy African-American would recognize the treatment of this article since its inception here as clearly symptomatic of a common syndrome related to the phenomenon of cultural appropriation -- which leads subsequently to a sense of white entitlement to a principle, practice or phenomenon; and then resentment and often outright antagonism (most virulent when the dimension of racism -- blatant or incipient -- ethnic bias and/or intellectual arrogance are added to the mix) when their "ownership" (attribution) of it is denied them -- particularly when they've been misinformed/miseducated all along about its true origins. We know it all too well. And I've seen clear signs of it here repeatedly in jazz, Afrocentrism, Controversy over race of Ancient Egyptians, Janis Joplin, blues -- you name it. This phenomenon is increasingly more commonplace among those with the most limited perspective/knowledge of history. (Is it any wonder, then, that the adolescent removed cultural appropriation from the "See also" list of African American music citing its inclusion as "POV"?) Ask any self-possessed, un-co-opted black person, and they'll nail the signs of it immediately. This kind of crap is just the SOS. It's something we expect/laugh about. (What can ya do? :p)

The second b.s. RfD and the adolescent's ongoing Bowdlerization of the text have been it for me with Cool (African philosophy). Let it be another piece-of-crap "article." It'll fit right in with most of the rest of the (exceedingly few) here that attempt to treat, but usually screw, black/African subject matter. deeceevoice 15:55, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

White people and racism

White people, including myself, don't like to be confronted with racism. It makes us uncofortable. You're doing a great job of confronting us. What happened to the article about Racism and wikipedia? --Defenestrate 19:38, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

I have no idea what article you're talking about. If you have an interest in it, I suggest you contribute. I am no longer contributing new information to any articles on this website and never expressed an interest in an article on Racism and wikipedia. Presumably, if someone wants to read my comments on the matter, they will visit my user page and click the link provided to the "rant" good ol' Jimbo deleted. deeceevoice 23:33, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Hey

The Revolution Will Not Be Televised, εγκυκλοπαίδεια* 01:31, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Whoops, absolutely forgot to say why I put this here, the arb com notice just passed through my page, so I thought this would be legitimate. Bye :-) εγκυκλοπαίδεια* 01:34, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Hey, Mxyzpltk. :p

Someone posted the decision on my page, but I simply deleted it, so I'm afraid I don't get the connection. But, yeah. I'm an old GSH fan from back in the day. Last Poets, too. Peace. deeceevoice 09:46, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

On the ArbCom

(From an e-mail I wrote earlier to a Wikipedian)

After the Arb Com failed to act in the case of Wareware, as far as I'm concerned, they're completely useless and utterly without any legitimacy. The fact that they would deliberate on this case for however long it's been, but fail to act at all in the Ww case -- and refuse to notify anyone of their decision to simply drop it precipitously, without any comment whatsoever -- tells me the body doesn't deserve my attention, and certainly not my respect. I probably shouldn't have commented on the proceedings at all, but I decided in the beginning to respond to some of the most bulls***/disingenuous charges up front.

And that Bauder, after his behavior, and Jayjg -- an abrasive, notorious POV warrior -- think they're in a position to pass judgment on me is beyond [arrogant]/hypocritical.

I suppose I'll eventually get around to checking out what they have to say, but I really, really couldn't care less. It's just not a priority of mine.

And the earlier post of someone notifying me of the ArbCom's "ruling" was deleted without having been read. They have no authority I am obliged to respect, IMO, none which merits respect. deeceevoice 09:46, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

disgusting behaviour from the Arb Com. Sludgehaichoi 13:51, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Block

I have blocked you for 48 hours for personal attacks: "Don't bore me with your simplistic/idiotic assumptions"[1], "Jayjg [is] an abrasive, notorious POV warrior"[2]. — Matt Crypto 17:58, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Let's examine your behavior, Crypto. Stalking me. Assuming bad faith[3] setting the tone for others to do the same. Ignoring their antagonistic, value-laden comments, but then returning to target and blocking me. It seems to me, Crypto, someone should block you. *x* deeceevoice 08:49, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

LOL, well, I'm afraid that's not going to happen, not least because your criticism is baseless. I suggest you take some time to reflect on your own behaviour — which has been the subject of a recent ArbCom ruling — rather than trying to pin the blame on someone else. — Matt Crypto 17:28, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Reality check, Crypto. My comments about black people in Negroid have absolutely nothing to do with the ArbCom -- and your reaction to them was patently ridiculous and, based on some of your characterizations of my own comments could be seen as a "personal attack." Now. Having said that, unless you have some pressing administrative business -- like another one of your tiresomem blocks to notify me of -- do not post here again. I will simply delete your remarks without reading them. (I may do that anyway. :p) You have absolutely nothing to say that I wish to read. As of immediately, you are unwelcome here. *x* deeceevoice 19:36, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

userpage

I have blanked your userpage since it consists entirely of disruptive content and discussions regarding said disruptive content. I have also deleted the history for the same reason which is an abnormal step but not an unheard of one especially considering the circumstances. I suggest you try to rebuild your userpage with some constructive content. Jtkiefer^{T | C | @} ---- 17:19, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

I have restored the linked page and the link on my user page. The discussion regarding my user page related to an earlier version long since removed -- but not deleted -- by Wales. The new page, with a link, was not deemed inflammatory or offensive. You've overstepped your bounds. deeceevoice 04:49, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Nope, not so. You're prohibited from using your user page to publish offensive rants, and administrators can delete any offensive material from your user page at any time. Moreover, if you attempt to restore the offensive material, you may be blocked. I've blocked you for four days. — Matt Crypto 06:53, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

FYI, an "offensive rant" is not the same thing as expressing an opinion. Frankly, IMO (and in the opinion of several others), the page Wales objected to was not a "rant," but a point-by-point explication of my position w/regard to Wikipedia. deeceevoice 07:39, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Ethiopid

Unprotected, per request.--Fil<font color="green">e</font> ?ireann 11:26, 22 February 2006 (UTC) == Hey! ==
Dc, please be patient with me. I'm writing this on a phone. Expect to wait half an hour before i finish what I want to say. User:ZyXoas

== Confusion ==
I'm ZyXoas. I'm the guy who told you to relaxxxx a while ago. Yawn? Please visit my talk page. All your incremental edits are making it very difficult to write on your talk page. User:ZyXoas 11:03, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
It's Mayibuye iAfrika, "Let Africa return" in isiZulu.

cool

Hello deeceevoice, i understand your concern about the 'cool' page becoming less specific. I hope i have not contributed to the 'entrenched systemic bias' and the 'hostile, racist environment'. When adjusting the page i forgot to move talk pages. I moved cool (aesthetic) to cool because i think it is the dominant use of the term, as a google search suggests. I redirected cool (aesthetic) to cool so old links would work. Spencerk 17:36, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

The problem is that cool is an aesthetic. It is the proper title for cool in the common sense of the word. The way it's now set up, any user keying in "cool" will be sent too "cool (aesthetic)." There's a diambig link at the top of the page for anyone who's reached the destination in error. deeceevoice 23:31, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

About my advice

Seriously, relax. I'm African (and I don't mean an American claiming to be African - I actually live in RSA) and although I don't really have any internet access I still try to make a difference by challenging Wikiped's Eurocentric language names (non-)policy. Please see Talk:African_languages and Talk:Sesotho_language. A small warlet is going on and due to my lack of resources I seem to be losing! (unsigned post)

"Seriously, relax"? Relax about what? "...an American claiming to be African...?" What the heck does that mean? I don't know much about African languages, frankly, being a U.S./ American citizen (not an "American"; IMO, there IS an important distinction) who is an African-American :p, but I'll check it out. Mayibuye l' Afrika. Peace. deeceevoice 10:27, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Okay. I visited briefly. I can't tell which posts are yours -- because you don't sign them. Or, at least, you didn't sign your post here, so that I can track your contributions elsewhere. And jumping from the edit "history" page to the talk page and comparing IP addresses is just too much of a hassle. (Even if you don't officially adopt a user name, it would help matters if you'd sign your posts in some way.) I'm thoroughly in the dark. As a result, I don't know what you're trying to do or write, or what you would like me to do or write. Since you don't have easy access to the Internet, perhaps you'd like to e-mail me and discuss your issues/concerns in greater detail. Feel free to use the "E-mail this user" link to the left, if you like. deeceevoice 10:40, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

== Hey! ==
Dc, please be patient with me. I'm writing this on a phone. Expect to wait half an hour before i finish what I want to say. User:ZyXoas

Confusion

I'm ZyXoas. I'm the guy who told you to relaxxxx a while ago. Yawn? Please visit my talk page. All your incremental edits are making it very difficult to write on your talk page. User:ZyXoas 11:03, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

It's Mayibuye iAfrika, "Let Africa return" in isiZulu. User:ZyXoas

(Above sections copied and pasted from edit history page because it didn't show up here.)

Okay. Now, this is just plain weird. How is it that I can read your comments on the "history" page before I can read them here? Perhaps that's a function of the way you're transmitting your comments? (I have no clue.) Thanks for the correction. I've seen the sentence only in print, and the "i" looked like an "l" -- something I always wondered about, because of the seeming French intrusion. deeceevoice 11:19, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

re: your user page.

Can I quote you on that?

No, seriously...I want to quote you for an entry on my blog. I swore off editing Wikipeida because I was tired of contantly having to fix things. I was organizing my music collection, using Wikipedia to look up information quickly, and HAD to make a number of edits just because the quality of a lot of what I saw was just horrible, even by internet standards. I think the kicker was when I saw [this http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Didn%27t_I_%28Blow_Your_Mind%29&oldid=43440889]. I honestly think that, like your statement on the front page says, Wikipedia's main problem is that it is biased towards a white computer-saavy 18-to-34 year old demographic (which explains the unchaleneged gush and glut for The Beatles, The Simpsons, Star Trek, Star Wars, and such). The "one-man crusader" thing hasn't been very healthy at all for me, so I've been withdrawing from the whole thing. The scariest part is that Wikipedia is well on its way to becoming the number-one website on the net; imagine all of that misinformation spread among the masses. --FuriousFreddy 21:42, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

He-e-e-y, Furious! :D Good to hear from you. Yes, most definitely. Quote away. I decided to come back and continue to fight the good fight -- precisely for the reason you state. People actually believe a lot of this crap (yes, a lot of it written by a bunch of spazztastic adolescents). I've been in preliminary communication w/a brother about the Encyclopedia Africana. Just kickin' it around, but it shows promise. Peace 2 u. Deeceevoice 21:49, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

ROTFLMAO. Man, I just clicked the link. Day-um. That's wa-a-a-ay worse than the original article on Quiet storm and motherfucker before I got to them (though I have no idea what condition they're in now). Lawd hammercy. (shakin' my head) Deeceevoice 22:46, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Come see yourself in print! And yes...that was pretty bad. Minor in the grand sceheme of things, but highly audacious. --FuriousFreddy 22:58, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm diggin' the blog. (Do you have Mouseketeer ears? I remember the original MMC: "Meeska, mooska, Mouseketeer, mouse cartoon time now is here." :p) Keep it up. When I have some time, I'll return and post a few comments. Peace 2 u. Deeceevoice 08:56, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Maybe you can help on Ron Dellums

hi Deeceevoice,

pls go look @ whats happening to the Ron Dellums page around his race for mayor of oakland and his other history

i was going to try to help make it better, but then I saw that there has been a fight between two people, and I don't want the same thing to happen to me as happened to the others

peace βŢŘ: Nøbødy knøws whø Î am ør what Î am døing… 16:06, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Hey. :) Will drop by by the weekend. Mean deadlines this week. Peace. Deeceevoice 08:58, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

I've made some edits and additions -- and also have asked for admin intervention. The piece is a mess. Deeceevoice 09:17, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

you're being paged!

FYI: There a Bethesda, Md. student looking to interview a DC-area wikipedia editor, over on Wikipedia:Village pump (news). - DavidWBrooks 19:39, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I contacted the student suspecting that I wouldn't be of much help. As a journalist, I assumed he/she would want to know identifying information. I keep my cyberspace/virtual persona separate from my daily life. I did, however, direct the student to my user page and the piece on systemic bias, as background. (I doubt seriously they'll use either.) I also directed him/her to another area editor who may be willing to speak with them. Peace. Deeceevoice 09:16, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Ron Dellums edits

Thanks for your note -- I had just been doing some editing and have to get to work so I overwrote your last changes -- sorry about that -- I just don't have time to go back and readd mine into what you and Matt Crypto have done....

Thanks, BCorr|Брайен 12:40, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Hey -- I've been waiting for more people to get involved before fighting that battle -- but I think your additiomns were good and not "original research" -- I'll try to see if I can find some corroboration.

Peace, BCorr|Брайен 00:59, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

---

Good to hear from you. I will add the article to my watchlist. Guettarda 14:47, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Oromo

Is the word "indigenous" really necessary? We don't say that the French are an "indigenous" European ethnic group, for instance. Yom 09:05, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

IMO, yes. There is a movement afoot on Wikipedia to try to classific Cushitic peoples as something other than black. There's a lot of ridiculous crap about how Ethiopians are "Caucasoid," or more Caucasoid than black, etc., etc. It's important to emphasize that the Oromo are indigenous to Africa -- hence, black peoples. Khafre of dynastic Egypt was asserted by Petrie (the Father of Egyptology) to be Oromo; yet, another editor tried insert language in an article on the Giza Sphinx that Khafre was not black. Ridiculous! Further, "French" refers to a nationality and not a people, so your example doesn't quite fit -- does it? Deeceevoice 09:08, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Anyway, I note that your native tongue is Amharic, so I guess that means you're Ethiopian. Welcome, brother/sister, to Wikipedia. :) Peace. Deeceevoice 09:19, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Selam,

French refers to both a nationality and an ethnicity. If you want a better example, then I guess "Frank" would be the proper term. I know the discussion about "Caucasoid" and "Negroid" and all that, but I'm wondering if it's really necessary for an introductory paragraph to have, when most people have never heard of the controversy. I usually try to stay out of such discussions, though, as the terms are never consistent. If Caucasoid is used solely as a way to classify skulls, then yes, Ethiopians would be Caucasoid, but if it's a way of classifying race, then such a classifcation would be ridiculous as Ethiopians (who are indigenous and not the result of Sabaean-African mixture as claimed) are clearly black Africans. Not to mention the inherent fallacy in calling such groups "Caucasoid," implying that Ethiopian phenotypes are related to whites and not the other way around when all evidence points to Ethiopia and the Horn of Africa as the origin for modern humans. If we look at the problem with that sort of perspective, then, a close relation between Ethiopians and non-African groups doesn't imply "Caucasian-ness" or "mixture," but rather simply affirms its status as the ancestral home of anatomical modern humans; if we look at in that light, it explains away all divisions that racists try to emphasize. I've just commented on the controversy over these terms, specifically the term "Ethiopid," if you want to go check that talk page out, because I do think it can be an article of merit, rather than a rather odd redirect.

Yom 10:09, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

I beg to differ. You know very well that not all Ethiopians are "Caucasoid" -- and likely not even the majority of them. It all depends on geographic location. Those closest to the northern boundary tend to be more so, phenotypically -- as a result of admixture with Eurasians over time. Those to the south tend to be pronouncedly more Africoid. Certainly, in ancient types, the population of Ethiopia was markedly different from what it is today. The descriptions of Ethiopians in ancient times were of a people with dark/black skin and woolly hair -- like those found in the south. I've been to "Ethiopid" before, where they were spoken of in "Caucasoid" terms. If that was your work, then I just strenuously disagree. Peace back. :) Deeceevoice 10:35, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Checking, most of the nonsense of the earlier "Ethiopid" article was contributed by someone under the name of "Learning 1," who made such ridiculous claims as dark-skinned, kinky-haired Ethiopians weren't "real" Ethiopians and such. And when I speak of "Eurasian admixture," I do not mean to assert that relatively narrow nasal indices and also relatively straight hair are not natural phenotypic variations among black Africans. They most certainly are and are characteristics evident, obviously, in the indigenous Cushitic and Nilotic peoples of the region. However, so also are alveolar and maxillary prognathism (hallmarks of African peoples), which exist among northern Ethiopians to varying degrees -- and to a lesser degree than among those of the south. There is little evidence to support that these variations are intrinsic; they are, rather, extrinsic to the "race" -- likely the result of contact and miscegenation with later, Eurasian populations over time, which is to be expected, given that the Horn of Africa is a continental gateway to Middle East, Asia and the Levant. Deeceevoice 10:51, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Selam,

1. It depends on what you mean by "Ethiopians." If you mean Ethiopian nationals, then not at all, as there are some areas of modern Ethiopia that were not previoulsy incorporated into the Empire - mainly the extreme West and Southwest (i.e. Gambella, Western Benishangul-Gumz, and the southwestern quadrant of SNNPR) - who cannot by skull shape (if that is the only determinant of "Caucausoid-ness") be classified as Caucasoid. As for the rest of the population (i.e. Oromo, Amhara, Tigray, Somali, Gurage, Afar, etc.), they certainly do display "Caucasoid" skulls. There are some Oromos who fit in more with SW people, though, as the Oromo ethnic group has a tendency to absorb earlier existing groups. For instance, in the Arsi region of Ethiopia, which is predominantly Oromo, something like 98% of them have Hadiya blood despite being full-blooded Oromos (although from what I've seen of Beyene Petros, Hadiya's don't seem to be much different from Oromos or Amharas phenotypically). As for any north/south differentiation, the main difference is really just color, which isn't in itself a measure of having a "Caucasoid" skull. The "mixture with Eurasians" over time is incorrect, however. There has been relatively little mixing, actually. Firstly, Ethiopia's only occupation occured during a brief 5 year span in WWII (during which there wasn't any significant mixing), and before that, Ahmed Gragn's invasion in the 1500s was from Adal, a southern state, and only lasted 15 years, which again doesn't allow for mixing. The claimed admixture by these racists (again trying to make us seem less indigenous and African) supposedly occured around 500 BC by migrating Sabaeans, but if you look at what the modern consensus is (e.g. look at Stuart Munro-Hay's Aksum: A Civilization of Late Antiquity), you'll see that the migration of Sabaeans seems to have just been a minor migration, possibly living under some sort of symbiosis treaty, and only existed for a few decades before leaving for Yemen (or possibly being absorbed into the population - but remember this was a minor migration, so it would have minor effects). With regard to "Ethiopians" in ancient times, you're referring to Herodotus, who probably actually never visited Ethiopia proper, but rather just Nubia, as "Ethiopia" was used to describe Africa in general, and Nubia in particular until the common era. Even in c. 250 AD, it was used by an Aksumite king to refer to the lands to the west, while the first (known) use of Ethiopia as referring to Ethiopia proper being with Ezana c. 325=350 AD, translating his reign over a people named Habashat (i.e. Habesha) in Greek as Aethiopia. As to something being "my work," I have no idea what you're talking about because, as I said earlier, I have tried to stay out of those discussions, and I have not really edited those articles except to correct for obvious POV or mistakes.

2. Wrt the Ethiopid article, it was basically nonsense, but that doesn't mean that it has to remain that way. Wrt to prognathism, I'm not sure if I understand your argument. Are you saying that the relative lack of it is implying the admixture, or are you saying that the north lacks it more than the south, so there was admixture in the north? I disagree strongly with the first, as plenty of skulls dating from pre-historic times with relatively narrow nasal indices and no or limited prognathism exist (e.g. to be specific, I'm sure of one example from 9,000 B.C.), so those are indeed indigenous African traits, and not the result of Eurasian admixture. As to the second argument, the north has undoubtedly experienced more admixture than the south, but that does not mean that that is the reason why Ethiopians look the way they do.

Yom 18:46, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

When you speak of skull type, I consider prognathism to be part of the mix --faciocranial characteristics, if you like. Faciocranial characteristics -- one of which is "skull shape," as you call it -- are the most reliable means of determining "racial" identity. It is my understanding that, like most Africoid peoples, Ethiopians are dolichocephalic. The only Caucasoids known for dolichocephalism are Nordics -- and I don't think there was some prehistoric Sven Bjorksen running around the Ethiopian highlands back in the day. :p As far as the narrow nasal indices, I've already mentioned that there are plenty of indigenous, unmixed Africans with such a trait. Now, when it comes to a lack of prognathism, that's another thing -- but that may be my ignorance, and I'd like to be pointed to that information. Limited prognathism in Africoid populations is expected, given the degree of biodiversity among African peoples, generally (as is also evidenced by stature, skin coloration, hair texture -- and faciocranial differences, as well). But I'm unaware of a complete lack of prognathism in indigenous African peoples anywhere.

In reading up on the subject, I've come across a rather technical, but fascinating study that repeats something I remember reading before about the faciocranial characteristics of some indigenous North Africans (blacks) being "proto-Caucasoid," which makes sense if one reads that as being a population which, once having migrated from Africa, eventually gave rise to Europeans.[4] Given, again, the location of the Horn in relation to Europe, the Middle East and Asia, it makes perfect sense. If, however, you are saying moderated prognathism and narrow nasal indices are "Caucasoid," then I'll have to differ. Again, prognathism is a distinctly Africoid trait, and narrow indices are plentiful among Cushitic and certain Nilotic peoples. So, how can they be "Caucasoid" phenotypes? It is precisely why in Negroid I inserted language referring to the "classic" Negroid phenotype, to underscore the point that there is no singular, true Negroid/Africoid phenotype and which specifically mentions the fact that Africans/Negroids/Africoids have the greatest degree of biodiversity of any racial grouping. I would guess in that regard, we are on the same page. And, judging from the article I've just referenced, I have, perhaps, overemphasized (but not been in error) about Eurasian admixture among some Ethiopians. And, yes, to the extent that one does so, it plays into racist notions about Hamitic peoples entering that area of Africa and "civilizing" it -- which I find not only absurd, but offensive. It also plays into the racist notions of dynastic Egypt being some sort of Semitic, Afro-Asiatic civilization, when at its core it remained black African. My bad if I gave the wrong impression -- certainly not my intent. But for black folks to use the word "Caucasoid" to explain perfectly normal variations in Africoid phenotypes because they don't fall into the broad faced, broad-nosed, full-lipped, nappy-haired stereotype is certainly unfortunate/inaccurate and, IMO, disservice to the race. It's rather like saying a father has his son's eyes. :p

Rather than falling into that trap, I would prefer that we continue to try to set the record straight about what exactly is Africoid phenotypically -- and just how diverse that concept actually is.

If you can find a reference to that African skull without prognathism -- particularly if it is also brachycephalic, rather than dolichocephalic, with more squared orbital sockets, small incisors and a bilobate chin (all classically Caucasoid characteristics) -- I'd certainly be interested in seeing it. Deeceevoice 19:45, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

I wasn't aware that other Africans were dolichocephalic, but I did know that Nords were; since they're usually used as the basis of being Caucasoid, I'm not sure if the cephalic index is that important in determining race (Arabs are also apparently dolichocephalic). I'll leave the utility of cephalic indices to others though, as I really know too little about them to dicuss it. With regards to prognathism, I was including it in my characterization of "Ethiopian" skulls as "Caucasod." I wouldn't say that there is never prognathism in "Ethiopid" populations, but I will assert that most Ethiopians that I know have little or no prognathism (and, according to various studies, it's apparently limited to the "aveolar" region - which, if you've ever seen a Somali, anyone can attest for). I don't think that there has to be a complete lack of prognathism for a skull to be classified as caucasoid, however. Personally, I don't have any prognathism, but I've seen plenty of whites who do. The only difference is that there are rarely Ethiopians with a sort of a-prognathism (i.e. recessed aveolar regions) like those of Jacques Chirac - see the portrait of [[Tewodros II] on his article or Amhara people for instance (though that could just be exagerration by the sketcher).

Dolichocephalism is a signature trait most Africoid/Negroid peoples -- except pygmies and KhoiKhoi, who tend to be brachycephalic. Thus, they have a separate classification: Capoid. Deeceevoice 21:53, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

If by N. Africans you mean NE, then I wouldn't be surprised, but if you mean NW, then that is interesting indeed. I'm skeptical of the evolution of no or limited prognathism occuring out of Africa however, as the people who are just out of Africa would be expected to still have significant prognathism. That is, if the trait evolved on the way to Europe, rather than being an already existing trait, you would expect Middle Easterners to still have significant prognathism today unless there was some sort of mass backward migration (and I'm not aware of any). Seeing as Arabs (and particularly coastal Yemenis) tend to have the same sort of skull as Ethiopids, and considering the skull I refered to, I'd say it's more likely that it's an indigenous African trait. Wrt Egypt, I've always heard (from those who don't have an agenda and seem to be objective to me) that Egypt was relatively multi-ethnic, but that the predominant population was "Ethiopid." I know that if you go south of the Delta and Lower Egypt, where most of the Arabs and foreign populations are settled, you'll see a lot of Ethiopian looking people. Wrt to using the word "Caucasoid" - I agree that European populations should be instead be called "Ethiopid" or Ethiopoid," but we're stuck with this terminology for now. I only use it in reference to Ethiopians only if the meaning is solely "low nasal index and limited or no prognathism," though, as I stated before. It's use as a racial concept is pretty useless. If we're to use Africoid to refer to Ethiopians cranofacially, though, then the term would actually just be referring to race, and wouldn't be very useful with regard to craniofacial categorization, since basically any skull (unless Capoid is excluded, then Asian ones as well) would fit into this category.

I don't have any link to the picture or any extended description of the skull, but it's referrenced to by Donald Levine in his (originally published in the 1970s) "Greater Ethiopia." It's described as dolichocephalic. The direct quote is as follows and can be retrieved from google books here:

Precisely as I suspected. A dolichocephalic skull, then, would indicate that it is Negroid/Africoid, then, rather than Caucasoid. Racial phenotypical models work as a gestalt. If a specimen exhibits a preponderance of characteristics belonging to one "racial" grouping than another, then it may be said to belong to that group possessing that like cluster of characteristics. It's not sensible to pluck out prognathism and say because it isn't prominent or is negligible, that the speciment isn't Negroid/Africoid. Susan Anton examined the skull of King Tut, and she found it distinctly "African": exaggeratedly dolichocephalic; rounded eye sockets; with a highly pronounced alveolar prognathism, enlarged incisors (having a bucktoothed appearance); and with a receding chin line. All distinctly black African features. The clincher that allowed her to specify it as North African (in the Nilotic -- not in the Arab/Semitic sense that most people assume) was the narrow nasal index. Deeceevoice 21:53, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Of the prehistory of Greater Ethiopia very little is known. One can only hope that archaeological work in this area will become more vigorous and extensive. It does seem to be established that by the beginning of the Late Stone Age, about 9000 B.C., there were at least two distinct tool-making cultures in the area, one specializing in small stone bladelets known as the Wilton industry, the other based on long obsidian blades known as Hargeisan. The human remains associated with both these industries appear to be of a long-headed type that has been described as Afro-Mediterranean; there is no evidence of Bushmanoid or Negroid populations in the area at that time.

This was written in the 1970s so the language sounds as if it's supporting the Hamitic myth, but if you read the rest of the book, he never asserts anything to that effect, and seems to be pretty objective (he has a more recent - 1994 IIRC - interesting study regarding diversity - specifically the existence of many ethnic groups and languages in a country - and economics that is pretty objective as well).

Yom 20:33, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Uh ... the remains are clearly Negroid/Africoid if they are dolichocephalic and in Africa. I just checked the link. This guy is full of it. He actually goes on to say: "The analysis of linguistic distributions suggests that the proto-Ethiopians of the third millennium BC spoke languages derived from a single stock, that known as Hamito-Semitic or Afro-Asiatic. This ancestral language probably originated in the eastern Sahara, before the desiccation of that region." He speaks of dolichocephalic peoples in Africa -- but they somehow aren't Negroid? Outrageous on its face. And as far as I know, modern linguists agree that Tamazight, the native language of the Maghreb Berbers, originated with the original, black Berbers -- those of East Africa, many of whom still speak it, while those of the Maghreb now speak primarily Arabic. Deeceevoice 22:07, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

By "negroid," I think he means the skull classification. He never once in the book asserts that Ethiopians aren't black Africans. And what's so preposterous about the AA language family originating in the Eastern Sahara (i.e. NE Africa)? Yom 22:19, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Did the passage say "eastern"? (My fatigue is showing. I'm crunching a deadline, and I often use Wikipedia when I'm fading to relieve the tedium.) I recalled it as "western" -- as you can see from my comments. What I don't get is what alternative racial category he proposes for the remains to which he refers. "Caucasoid"? That makes no sense, since -- agan -- Caucasoids are not dolichocephalic. This seems to go back to the silly dichotomy between Africoid/Negroids and the so-called "brown race" written about by those who would deny the essential Africanness of indigenous North Africans and (no surprise) the founders of dynastic Egypt. As Diop wrote in the UNESCO magnum opus on early African history:

From the Upper Paleolithic to the dynastic epoch, the whole of the river’s [Nile] basin was taken over progressively by these Negroid peoples….

…the Egyptian population was negro in the pre-dynastic epoch. … the facts prove that [the negro] was preponderant from the beginning to the end of Egyptian history, particularly when we note once more that ‘Mediterranean’ is not a synonym for ‘white’, Elliot-Smith’s ‘brown or Mediterranean race’ being nearer the mark. Elliot-Smith classes these proto-Egyptians as a branch of what he calls the brown race, which is the same as Sergi’s ‘Mediterranean or Eurafrican race’. The term ‘brown’ in this context refers to skin colour and is simply a euphemism for negro. It is thus clear that it was the whole of the Egyptian populatin which was negro, barring an infiltration of white nomads in the proto-dynastic epoch….

Nevertheless, in current textbooks the question is suppressed: in most cases it is simply and flatly asserted that the Egyptians were white and the honest layman is left with the impression that any such assertion must necessarily have a prior basis of solid research. But there is no such basis, as this chapter has shown. And so generation after generation has been misled…. -- Ancient Civilizations of Africa: A General History of Africa, vol. 2

Deeceevoice 23:08, 25 March 2006 (UTC)</

"Afro-Mediterranean" seems to me to corroborate other accounts of a distinctly African presence in the Mediterranean (as well as the Levant), rather than some notion of dolichocephalism being a Caucasoid trait; it clearly is not (except among Nordics). Like Arabs and other Semites, I would assume that to the extent dolichocephalism and prognathisms exist among the population, their bloodlines are mixed with that of black Africans -- which is, of course, common, as evidenced by what we know of the area's history, as well as of blood typing and the statistically significant existence of the sickle cell trait among the populace of those regions. Deeceevoice 21:53, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

By "Afro-Mediterranean" in this case, I think he means long-headed, limited or no prognathism, and low nasal indices, not necessarily refering to an African presence on the Mediterranean. Regarding the Arabs, I would say that the existence of Sickle cell isn't the best way to measure their mixing with Africans, since that would be more from recent admixture. Sickle cell doesn't exist in Ethiopia, and that's where most Yemenis would have gotten their mixture from, seeing as it was a part of Ethiopia until the Islamic conquests. I don't think that the dolichocephalic nature of Arabs can be solely explained away with mixing, however. I think it attest more to the fact that so-called "Caucasoid" (more accurately "Ethiopoid") skull-types (but dolichocephalic) originated in Africa and spread to Europe through the Middle east, where skull types and phenotypes are more similar to indigenous NE Africans. Yom 22:19, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

And, no. Of course he wouldn't be referring to an African presence in the Mediterranean. People of his ilk wouldn't. It's what I take from his writings; it is what is fact. I doubt that. A lot of Arabs have swarthy skin and that marginally nappy hair, as well. :p Further, with regard to sickle cell, I doubted your assertion and looked it up. Check this out.[5] Deeceevoice 23:08, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Further, your apparent assumption about the lack of an Africoid presence in North Africa in ancient times is just flat-out incorrect (regarding Arabs). How do you explain the obviously Africoid and very Dinka-looking Sphinx? There is ample evidence of a distinctly Africoid (read this as meaning conforming to the classic Negroid phenotype -- Nilotics as Equatorial Africans and a Khoisan presence*) presence in dynastic Egypt in ancient times. Semitic Eurasians mixed with the blacks of the region over the several centuries. These are the Arabs. It would seem to be the same process that produced the Hassidim, or so-called "Oriental" Jews, in that part of the world, with swarthy skin and nappy hair. I'm not sure I get the connection with Yemen and your use of "that." If it's important to your point, please explain. Deeceevoice 01:13, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

If by Africoid, you mean the "classic Negroid" phenotype, then, no, I wasn't aware of one in North Africa, excluding Egypt (i.e. NW Africa), but if you read what I said earlier, you'll see that I acknowledged the existence of various ethnic (I really meant racial) groups in Ancient Egypt, but I do believe, based both on their artistic representations of themselves and the modern population of Upper Egypt (which was less affected than Lower Egypt by invasions), that the primary peoples inhabiting (i.e. the base stock into which the admixture was occuring) was "Ethiopid." As to Yemen, Arabs believe that the "purest" and original Arabs come from the mountains of Yemen (specifically the Hadramaut region), which is why I was referring specifically to Yemen and not North Africa. I don't actually believe that modern North Africans are Arabs; most North Africans who claim Arab descent are actually arabized Berbers, and if you've seen what they're claiming as Bedouin Arab (esp. in Sudan - the Beja are considered Arabs, and they're no different from Ethiopians), then you'd see how ridiculous some of the classifications are, and how useless an "Arabid" classification is. Yom 03:09, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

• Note that rendering of the queen of Punt here [6]. Dynastic Egyptians traced their origins there. And as you likely know, it is surmised that Punt was in Eritrea, possibly Somalia. Some white hacks have tried to attribute the queen's ample behind to lipodystropy or some mythological "Queen of Punt" disease -- reminiscent of the way they tried to make Tut's typically dolichocephalic head the result of some sort of malformation or pathology. But lipodystrophy is marked by a wasting of the buttocks, arms and legs -- clearly not in evidence here. The fact is she shows a classic feature of a Khoisan woman: steatopygia. Those who've advanced theories of pathology also seem to have overlooked another obvious feature of this relief: the obvious "third leg" of the Queen underneath her garment. This is obviously the elongated labia minora that is distinctively characteristic of Khoisan women. It's obvious -- if you know how to look at the incredibly detailed work of ancient craftsmen. The prognathism of the ancient Egyptians is also prominent in their artwork. It is how "walking like an Egyptian" came to mean, yes, holding one's hands at odd, horizontal angles -- but also craning one's neck forward. Why? To approximate the forward-slanting profiles of the Egyptians themselves. (Check out their art. It's there. It's even there in their ethnographic murals. Equatorial Africans/Nubians also have distinctive prognathisms. The other peoples are flat-faced. (Sorry if I've gotten off-topic. I think I've started to ramble.) :p Deeceevoice 01:40, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Uh...this is getting kind of off-topic, but I'll respond anyway. I can't explain the steatopygia, but I do know that it is thought that, at the time of the voyage, any pre-existing Khoisan or Capoid populations in the area no longer existed, though I don't know what data they're basing this on. It could be a bad representation of a fat woman, but I'm not going to posit any theories, since there's a dearth of information. As to the elongated labio minora you refer to, I really don't see it. I see the pair of white clothes hanging down from the waists of the men (which are in between their legs like elongated labia minora), though. If you look very closely at her genital region, then there seems like there could be the faint outline of an elongated labia minora, but that might be assuming too much about how preserved the paintings are. The region you're talking about looks like it may be the result of water damage or something like that, but I really don't know. Either way, I'm not sure what your point is exactly. That there were Khoisan populations that far north? (if so, then are you implying that it's a major component of Ethiopian DNA?). Wrt forward slanting profiles, the pictures do have slants to them, but the prognathism seems to be minor and in most cases doesn't look like it's out of the range of any "Ethiopid" phenotype. I wonder if the skull types in the mummies match this, though. The mummies that I've seen don't seem to have any prognathism (there are a couple, but most that I've seen look "Ethiopid") or have limited prognathism. I don't understand exactly what you're trying to prove to me, though. I don't deny that prognathism is an Africoid trait, but showing it to exist in other populations doesn't mean that no prognathism cannot be an Africoid trait, albeit developed later, just before the exodus out of Africa. Yom 03:09, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

I keep reading more of your post and being (sorry) flabbergasted. Yes. Prognathism is abundantly clear in the mummies, as well. See this section on the subject, which I wrote in predominant part, though it likely has changed somewhat since then; it was a while ago.[7] And be sure to click the photographic links. Note the silly-looking forensic reconstruction of Tut -- the skull of a black man in white skin, with hazel eyes.[8] Leaving aside those outrages for a moment, let's deconstruct the profile: 1) an extremely dolichocephalic skull with a sagittal ridge (what African-Americans call "peanut head"), 2) a maxillary prognathism and a pronounced alveolar prognathism (with enlarged incisors, not seen in this photo), producing a bucktoothed appearance, 3) a receding chin, 4) narrow nasal index (consider the exaggerated narrowing of nose in the reproduction; soft tissue is, of course, subjective). Read like any population you know of? Yep. Classic Nilotic black. In the American reconstruction (done in neutral clay so as to avoid any assumptions about skin color) the nose isn't as narrow, and it is very easy to see this fellow with dark brown to mahogany skin walking the streets of Nairobi or in the Sudan today. There's another frontal photo of a scan showing the skull which I can't find at the moment, clearly showing very rounded eye sockets -- another Africoid trait. In the section I wrote in the "Controversy" article, take special note of the links to the shematics of skull morphology in royal mummies and the photographic links to existing Africoid populations. Peace. Deeceevoice 12:16, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm only commenting on the mummies I've seen, but I acknowledge the existence of a multi-ethnic society in Egypt. There were NE African types, Nilotics, and even some Middle Easterners. The point I'm arguing is that the common populace was more NE African than other types; I base this on the ubiquity of NE types throughout Upper Egypt (and apparently, I've just been made aware of, also in Nomadic Libya) - who are mischaracterized as Arab. They tend to be a bit lighter and have a bit curlier hair than Ethiopians (from what I've seen), but clearly fall squarely in the Ethiopian and certainly not Arab or N. African category. Do Nilotics have only aveolar prognathism? To what extent? If so, then it could complicate things even further (though from what I've seen of them , they tend to have much smaller forheads than "Ethiopids"). I don't know what kind of eyesockets Ethiopians have, but elongated (laterally) is the coveted trait, especially big eyes, and that's how in art we always portray ourselves, though I don't know what that would mean for classification since you say "Caucasoids" tend to have squarer eyesockets.

Yom 04:45, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Here's a link to a better photo.[9] And another. [10] The "third leg" is clearly visible. Further, there are accounts of Africoid populations in the region in the time of dynastic Egypt. What you've read is wishful thinking on the part of those who would deny a strongly Africoid presence in North Africa. I do not purport to be an expert on anything, but I must say I'm shocked that you haven't been aware of such a thing, given that you come from that part of the world. I urge you to take note of the article on the Great Sphinx of Giza and, in particular, follow the link in the Flaubert quote to the photo. The man is almost certainly a Nilotic/Dinka black. And there are records of the Egyptians traveling to Punt and bringing back "dwarfs" (Negrito pygmies) for the royal court. Peace. Deeceevoice 11:04, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

It's more visible, but that doesn't change my original question: what is your implication by showing that there was a pygmy population in Eritrea/Ethiopia/Sudan at that time? Regarding the sphix, his Nilotic characteristics (it looks like it has more than just aveolar prognathism, in fact) are obvious, but as I have said before, I'm not arguing that Egypt didn't have people from all places.

Yom 04:45, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

With regard to the clearly Africoid presence in the Horn, in Punt (Eritrea)(not "Caucasoid"):

However, the Egyptians may have brought back more than goods from Punt, for it has often been suggested that their well known pygmy god, Bes, may have also been a Punt import. It would seem probably that dwarfs and pygmies were indeed imported from Punt, for an inscription in the tomb of Harkhuf, and expedition leader under Pepy II, tells of his acquisition of a dwarf for that king.[11]

Is pygmy characterized as "Africoid" or "Negroid" or is it in its own, separate group altogether? I would have thought that they would be characterized differently, given how deep their clades are (like the Khoisan) in relation to other populations (deepness in clades is shared with Ethiopian populations, which is the significant difference that I'm pointing out - but don't get it wrong like Zaph, I'm in no way trying to say that Ethiopians aren't black Africans).

Yom 04:45, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

It occurs to me, too, that Arab acquisition of the sickle cell trait (and, of course, in the Mediterranean region) is also more "recently" and obviously the result of the extensive Moorish domination of Spain in which two, successive waves of black Moors from Senegal helped to conquer and rule that region, the Islamic invadors having a significant presence there from the early 700s (about the time the Arabs also conquered and occupied Egypt) to nearly the end of the 16th century, ousted by the Crusades. Deeceevoice 02:52, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

I'll respond to your other comments later, but I did a little research, and it seems that the existence of sickle cell anemia is relegated to the SW SNNPR region of Ethiopia (again where most "non-Ethiopid" in Ethiopia live) 1 2 Yom 23:26, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

I wasn't able to find a breakdown by peoples or areas -- and don't see it in the info you've provided. (I could have overlooked it, though.) Deeceevoice 01:49, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

The breakdown doesn't actually show population areas. It just shows that all of Ethiopia, the horn, and NE Africa in general doesn't have sickle cell except for the very edge of SW Ethiopia (i.e. the most SW part of SNNPR). Yom 01:52, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

That Ark, those pretty faces, their ancient culture... they just have to be taken out of their black african context don't they Yom? --Zaphnathpaaneah 06:04, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Did you even read what I wrote? I am Ethiopian and consider myself to be 100% black African. Please, think before you write. Yom 04:45, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

If Caucasoid is used solely as a way to classify skulls, then yes, Ethiopians would be Caucasoid, but if it's a way of classifying race, then such a classifcation would be ridiculous as Ethiopians (who are indigenous and not the result of Sabaean-African mixture as claimed) are clearly black Africans - (Yom)

Read my comments to Zaph below, Yom. "Long" faces and limited prognathism do not a Caucasoid skull make. There are other factors involved in skull morphology that go into racial classification. The question is have racists picked and chosen among them to in an attempt de-Africanize the language descriptive of Africans of the Horn? Hell, yes. One thing African-Americans learned a long time ago is this: the power to define is the power to control. If you use their corrupted terminology, then you fall into their trap. Again, Africoid phenotypes are highly diversified; that is scientific fact and widely acknowledged among forensic scientists and forensic anthropologists. If "Caucasoid" is used in any way to describe the faciocranial characteristics of indigenous Africans of the Horn, then the term should be "proto-Caucasoid," indicating the likely link between those populations and later-developing Caucasoids. Deeceevoice 10:57, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

"Proto-caucasoid" isn't any more correct than "Proto-negroid" or "Proto-mongoloid," though. I'm not trying to separate Horn Africans from other blacks, but simply acknowledge that we exhibit different skull types. "Ethiopid" is more accurate, as Ethiopians exhibit very deep clades, indicating that our genes are the closest to the modern anatomical humans from which everyone alive today is descended (plus, Ethiopia/Horn of Africa is the region where the first modern anatomical humans are thought to have arisen, and the Ethiopia->Yemen route is also thought to be a major point of exit out of Africa).

Yom 04:45, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

The issue is what defines "caucasoid". The term has been itself defined as a way to counteract the broadness of Blackness in the past 50 years of interpretation. As Black culture became more interesting to white archaeologists, the definition of Caucasoid skulls changed to include them and to remove black ingenuity from the context of the cultural and technological achievement of those cultures. It's the Caucasoid (white) brain that allowed the Ethiopians to accomplish what they accomplish. Soon enough, when West African archaeology develops, we will find the same trend. --Zaphnathpaaneah 06:11, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, but that's horse hocky, Zaph. Again, an indigenous African phenotype cannot be "Caucasoid." Further, they don't fit the Caucasoid phenotype; they're dolichocephalic with rounded eye sockets, prognathism to varying degrees, with normal phenotypical variation, given the broad range of naturally occurring phenotypical diversity among the black race. Further, from the many Ethiopians I've known, I'd bet cash money the dentation is also very cleary Africoid. Read my comments above. You say what you say about the (obvious) intent of whites in defining out certain black populations (typical modus operandi). But you've fallen into the same word trap these same racists want you to. Further, there is no such thing as a "white brain" -- or an "Africoid/Negroid brain," or a "Mongoloid brain." Yours has got to be one of the most outrageously misguided statements I've read since coming to this website -- and that's going some. How on earth can any self-respecting black man say such a thing as you have? I'm beginning to wonder about you, man. (I'm going to have to check your user name and make sure a variant of it hasn't been hijacked by some racist troll.) Skull morphology has nothing to do with the brain inside (not in "modern" humans, anyway) -- unless we're talking about deformities and related problems. The only reason I dignified your post with a response is that it is, IMO, too backward to ignore. Sorry, but I'm just being frank. Deeceevoice 10:44, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Deeceevoice, I am always amazed how you can find disagreement in the strangest way. Perhaps we are similar in that we like to find conflict where there may be none. In any event. I am not saying that the indigenous African phenotype is Caucasoid. In fact, I think you missed the sarcasm in my last two statements above. I do not literally belive that Caucasoid based Africans are the root cause of any African civilization. My whole point was to show how subjective labeling of phenotypes by Europeans creates a false sense of identity among unrelated peoples in order to justify Eurocentrism. Arugh. The "Caucasoid" brain is the archetype of the Eurocentric "master race" (which now currently gives way to the Eurocentric Caucasoid "neolithic return to Africa" theory.) I also know that skull morphology is unrelated to brain function. I myself proposed that the .1 percent differences in skull shapes among humans is no more varied than the .1 percent synaptic and nerve ending variation within the brain itself. You see Deecee, the Euroentricists ultimately want to describe the Caucasoid type as main "human" type which first reached the plateau of human civilized intelligence. After that point, they then postulate that this Caucasoid type, with his peculiar brain spawned or through mixing, helped generate all the civilizations in Africa. This ignorance was behind the Rwanda war and genocide, with Britain and France constantly supporting the Tutsi (who they believed were the whiter, and more civilized people of that area, establishing them as the ruling classes of Rwanda), and the subsequent counter reaction by the Hutu. --Zaphnathpaaneah 10:57, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

One of the problems with cyberspace, Zaph. Sarcasm doesn't necessarily come across when discussing contentious matters. I understand perfectly well what the agenda of Eurocentrists is and has been, which is why I argue against using the term "Caucasoid" to describe Ethiopians -- or any indigenous Africans. The terminology games they play are simply a means of appropriating history/cultures. Diop and others have been very clear who the ancient Egyptians were. I sense among certian Ethiopians (not necessarily anyone commenting on this page) a desire to falsely differentiate themselves from the rest of black Africa. Another editor claiming to be Ethiopian just flat-out said he wasn't Negroid, but Caucasoid. In fact, here in D.C., I've constantly run into a superciliousness borne of abject ignorance about the contributions of Equatorial Africans and Nilotic blacks in the building of dynastic Egypt. Like a lot of, IMO, self-loathing black folks, they've bought the line about Equatorial Africans having no culture of any value at all (I think Learning 1 actually made such comments in Talk: Ethiopid, or, in all fairness, it could have been another editor). And then, of course, I've heard Equatorial Africans say the same thing about African-Americans, that we have no culture. And, yes, I'm aware that the Tutsi claim to be Ethiopid and that ethnic divisions fueled that barbaric episode in African history.

Divide and conquer. The sickness of self-loathing is alive and well in the race.

I still don't buy the Caucasoid classification crap. Again, I'd bet cash money that, taken as a whole, "Ethiopid" skulls are more African than Caucasoid or Mongoloid. Further, as I've said earlier (though, perhaps not in this discussion thread; I don't recall), IMO, "proto-Caucasoid" may be a more accurate term to characterize certain Africoid phenotypes, given that some African population clusters are more likely the root stock of Caucasoids than others.

"Soon enough, when West African archaeology develops, we will find the same trend." Further, Zaph, your twisted comment presupposes that only proto-Caucasoid Africans are on the historical record as having helped build Africa's great civilizations, when even in North Africa that is not the case. I thought you knew better than that. (shaking head) Jus' day-um. Deeceevoice 18:16, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes my comment (which is meant to be understood as an observation of Eurocentric manipulation and ignorance, not an observation of objective fact-finding of archaeology) does presuppose a lot doesn't it? Deecee, I didn't expect you to honestly argue against the nonsense. Aliens from Atlantis built the pyramids by the way, and they are called humans from a planet called Earth. Come on Deecee!!! --Zaphnathpaaneah 10:57, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

My apologies, Zaph, for underestimating your innate intelligence (but never your intellect). I'm relieved to know my earlier impressions of you were on target. But I hope you can appreciate my response. I'm certain you've heard people come out their mouths with all kinds of perverse crap on the subject of race, even those whom you may have thought had their heads on straight. And, no, Zaph. Not so! The aliens didn't come from Atlantis. They came from space through the Stargate! :p (One "editor" on the site actually had the nerve to write that Tut wasn't black; he looked like the very, very gay mulatto Jaye Davidson[12] -- of Stargate. CREEP-py! It's really sick when people allow their perceptions of reality to be shaped by Hollywood myth.)

By the way, I see the white/Jewish Hollywood media are up to their old tricks again. I've seen the promo for the latest cinematic entry into the orgy of white-folks-ruled-Egypt-and-the-blacks-were-all-Nubian-slaves Easter stories. Hallmark's running spots for an upcoming made-for-TV-movie that show a fair-skinned, light brown-haired, straight-haired, blue-eyed (what?) Moses and a fair-skinned, very white-looking Pharaoh. The crap just keeps coming. Deeceevoice 12:05, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Can we please slow down the debate by the way? It's interesting and all, but it's taking up a lot of time at a time when I have little. I wasn't able to reply all day today because I was stuck on a train for about 12 hours.

P.S. I didn't know you were a she, Deeceevoice. Given the dearth of female Wikipedians, why don't you make that evident on your user page?

Yom 04:45, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Sorry you got stuck on the train, Yom. :( Well, I don't make a big deal of my gender, because it's not important. My earlier user page did, however, state my gender by implication; but it was obliterated by Jimbo Wales (the founder of Wikipedia) because he found its criticisms of the racism and systemic bias of this site intolerable -- calling it a "rant," when it was nothing of the sort -- and, I suppose, my derision of the pretentiousness of his grand vision for the project intolerable. (But, hey, them's the breaks. :p) I haven't seen fit to redo my user page except to issue a warning about the project to those inclined to swallow the wiki hype hook, line and sinker. Peace. Deeceevoice 12:05, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Okay. I've amended my user page. My gender is up front (for what it's worth). :p Deeceevoice 12:09, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

And how about Eritrea (Punt)?

Eritrea, which -- again -- is thought to be the land of Punt by many modern-day historians and archaeologists, and which is on the coast on the African Horn, Northwest of Ethiopia, is peopled by clearly Africoid inhabitants. In fact, the earliest inhabitants of Eritrea are believed to be the Kunama. I have the advantage of living in a metropolitan area that has the largest concentration of Ethiopians (and, possibly, Eritreans) outside Addis, so I've seen plenty of Ethiopians. And -- sorry -- they aren't "Caucasoid." And there are plenty of Ethiopians who look no different from Equatorial Africans. And I once did volunteer fundraising work for the Eritrean Relief Committee during their armed struggle w/Ethiopia, so I am familiar with them as well. I did a little checking on the Net. This is what the Kunama people look like. (See the painting of the village of Barentu.)[13] Now check out the photos of Barentu and the indigenous Kunama people here.[14] These are not the images of a remotely Caucasoid people. Yet, the common disinformation would have you believe that the indigenous peoples of the Horn are predominantly somehow substantially phenotypically distinct from other black Africans "Ethiopid" and now "Caucasoid" -- when such is clearly not the case. Deeceevoice 11:38, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm familiar with the Kunama ethnic group, but they only number ~100,000, or 2% of Eritrea's population. That is, they're not the population being dicussed here. I assume you live in D.C. (or its environs - Silver Spring, Springfield, etc.), but I'd have to disagree with you there if by "Caucasoid" you mean facial features, i.e. narrow nose and limited to no prognathism - if a dolichocephalic skull is included then it would make Ethiopian skulls more "Negroid," but if eye-sockets are included, then it would make them more "Caucasoid," as Oblong eyes are a well-known, and coveted, Ethiopian trait. Either way, there's no use dicussing it in those terms, since everyone is subjective. It also depends on where the Ethiopian was from. As I said, when I say "Ethiopian," or "Ethiopid," I'm talking about specific (majority) populations, and use the term out of expediency, instead of saying "Amhara, Tigrinya-speaking, Tigre, Afar, Somali, Oromo, etc." The Kunama are a nilotic people, but they actually seem to me like a mix of Nilotic people and Tigrinya-speakers (if you look at the facial features and how dark the Dinka, Nuer, and Anuak are, and compare it to the Kunama, then you might see what I'm talking about), but I'm not really sure, since no genetic study has been done on them. I'm not arguing that Ethiopians are closer to Caucasians than Africans by the way. I'm simply arguing that Horn Africans are distinct from any other people and display traits from all groups as they are the direct descendents of the modern humans from whom all living groups inherited their features.

P.S. There's no reason to think Punt was limited to Eritrea and not also Ethiopia, considering the age of Yeha. ;)

Yom 03:55, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Jeeze. I'm talking eye sockets -- not the shape of the eyes. I have "almond eyes" and have myself been mistaken for Ethiopian, Latina, Egyptian, Bangladeshi -- you name it -- but you can bet my eye sockets are round; and I'm nowhere near "Caucasoid" or proto-Caucasoid. There's a difference. The importance of the Kunama is that they are believed to be the original inhabitants of the land. Keep in mind that the region's history must be thought of in terms of just that -- a region with fluid boundaries -- given the fact that modern-day nation-states were not in existence. And with the ebb and flow of political regimes, wars and climatic shifts, considerable demographic shifts have occurred over time, including in the modern era. That, phenotypically, some Ethiopians are closer to Caucasoids than are other African populations appears to be born out by recent genetic testing. From what I've read elsewhere, some modern-day Ethiopians have tested genetically midway between other indigenous African populations and Caucasians. I have no way of knowing how much of this genetic similarity is the result of relatively recent (in human history) racial/ethnic admixture (I have no information on where in Ethiopia the subject population resided -- but highly likely in the north) or how much is from ancient times.

I would caution you against over generalization. Not all living humans are descended from Horn Africans in the way you suggest in terms of migratory patterns. And not all Africans who went on to populate the Levant and beyond were "Ethiopid." Nubians and other Nilotic blacks went on to people the Levant and beyond, as well. And, again, you seem to be laboring under the misconception that there were no Equatorial types present in the North, which is quite untrue. (I urge you do do some further reading about the region's history, because there seems to be a big gap in your knowledge in this regard. Your thinking seems to reflect the propaganda that Eurocentrists have spread over the centuries and not recent scholarship.)

There is evidence in Indian folklore, as well as phenotypical evidence, that Nilotic and Cushitic blacks migrated from North Africa to India through the Levant. Additionally, the studies of geneticist Spencer Wells indicate that another, even earlier, migration from Africa took place, of San Bushmen, to India and Australia. And there is evidence that dynastic Egypt had trade relations with Indian blacks, as did, later, the Roman Empire. As far as physical traits, Wells has made similar claims regarding the San -- backed by genetic evidence -- which links them squarely to Dravidians/Tamils and the aboriginal blacks of Australia. It is also likely that this branch of humanity went on to people the Indian subcontinent, the Andamans and Southeast Asia, as well. The San Bushmen exhibit the epicanthic eyefolds found in Asians. And, as far as I know, there is no evidence of epicanthic eyefolds among "Ethiopids," though I could be mistaken. That is not to say that such a phenotypical variation could not have been the result of spontaneous mutation. However, I'm guessing it is far more likely that the branch of humanity which eventually peopled portions of Asia sprang from other African populations to the south. These are the usually darker-skinned, sundadont Asians of Thailand, Cambodia, etc., as opposed to the sinodont Asians of mainland China and elsewhere. It is widely known that these portions of the world had, and still have, aboriginal populations of Negroid peoples commonly referred to as Negritos: short in stature, dark-skinned, with nappy, often peppercorn hair. Some historians also claim that such peoples ranged as far north as China and Nepal, and there is some evidence of this in the art and history/literature of those regions. Deeceevoice 04:49, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Again, I don't have time to comment on your response in full, but what you said here:

That, phenotypically, some Ethiopians are closer to Caucasoids than are other African populations appears to be born out by recent genetic testing. From what I've read elsewhere, some modern-day Ethiopians have tested genetically midway between other indigenous African populations and Caucasians.

is a bit of a mischaracterization. The study said something to the affect that 40% of Ethiopians clustered with "Caucasoid" groups, and that 58% clustered with "Negroid" groups (or maybe it was the opposite, I'd have to look it up), making Ethiopians an intermediate population (again, looking at the whole problem wrong, thinking of Ethiopians as intermediates mixes rather than Caucasoids and Negroids as descendents). Either way, it wasn't saying that some cluster as intermediate, but that the population as a whole cluster as intermediates while individuals cluster as one or the other. Yom 06:25, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Again, you over generalize. I used "some," because, clearly, not all Ethiopians were studied. Only, obviously, the subject group. And where the population samples within Ethiopia came from I have no idea. Do you?

And hold up one minute! From what I know, the classic Negroid phenotype is older than what you refer to as the Ethiopid phenotype. Where on earth did you get the notion that the sequence was reversed? Deeceevoice 12:30, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

I won't have time to respond until tomorrow, but I'm not talking about just the phenotype. I'm talking about clades; "Negroid" clades and "Caucasoid" clades are both (along with "Mongoloid"), to my understanding, not as deep as "Ethiopid" and "Capoid" clades.

Here's a link.

Yom 18:00, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Fascinating blurb. You will note the title of the paper: "Ethiopians and Khoisan Share the Deepest Clades of the Human Y-Chromosome Phylogeny". :p But I note that the Khoisan are also mentioned, which would jive with Spencer Wells' DNA findings:

The present study reveals that (1) only the Ethiopians share with the Khoisan the deepest human Y-chromosome clades (the African-specific Groups I and II) but with a repertoire of very different haplotypes; (2) most of the Ethiopians and virtually all the Senegalese belong to Group III, whose precursor is believed to be involved in the first migration out of Africa; and (3) the Ethiopian Y chromosomes that fall into Groups VI, VIII, and IX may be explained by back migrations from Asia. The first observation confirms the ancestral affinity between the Ethiopians and the Khoisan, which has previously been suggested by both archaeological and genetic findings [emphasis added].

It goes on to remark upon the "anestral affinity" between the Ethiopians and the Khoisan. And it states that: "Although intermediary Bantu-speaking populations currently separate these two groups geographically, archeological findings suggest that the Khoisan territory once extended above the equator, to present-day southern Ethiopia and Sudan (Nurse et al. 1985, p. 105)." It has been known for some time that Bantu-speaking peoples displaced many Khoisan from the north and attenuated the Khoisan bloodline through intermarriage.

Further, the Senegalese are mentioned as clustering with Ethiopians in terms of haplotype -- and they, too, have minimal prognathism. (A Google yielded this somewhat perverse entry: Nature and Nurture in French Ethnography and Anthropology, 1859-191... Senegal had minimal prognathism compared to other Africans, they still “con-. stitute an inferior class of workers and producers” useful to Europeans in the ..., http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/journal_of_the_ ... ry_of_ideas/v065/65.3staum.pdf) But, gee, last I checked, no one's been calling the Senegalese "Caucasoid"....

I'm not arguing solely on minimal/no prognathism. That's one of my arguments, but the nasal index is important as well. Khoisans have little or no prognathism, but they more resemble East Asian populations (ignoring hair and pigmentation, and probably some other factors), not Caucasoid.

Yom 22:07, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Also, I urge you to read further. It appears that the Khoisan are actually a more ancient people than the Ethiopians -- just as Wells's more recent genetic studies indicate:

In conclusion, the present study underscores the complexity and substructure of the Ethiopian Y-chromosome gene pool. First, the presence of different Y-chromosome haplotypes belonging to African-specific Group I in all groups of Ethiopians and in the Khoisan (at frequencies of ∼13% and 44%, respectively) confirms that these populations share an ancestral paternity, as was previously suggested by the 49a,f data (Passarino et al. 1998), and it indicates that Group I was part of the proto-African Y-chromosome gene pool' [emphasis added].

Not necessarily, as he is referring only to one clade, but it wouldn't surprise me. The question is not just which population is more ancient, though. Khoisans lived pretty far north in ancient times, but Ethiopids are closer to Caucasoid populations and are also ancestral to that region and have very deep clades, implying that the ancestors of modern day Caucasoid populations were "Ethiopids" from the Horn of Africa. This is also supported by the phenotype of Berbers today (especially some of the costal ones), considering that according to DNA analysis, 75% of their ancestry comes from the horn of Africa.

Yom 22:07, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

African-American historian Drusilla Dungee Houston had it right way back in the 1920s:

In the inscriptions relative to the campaigns of Pepi I, Negroes are represented as immediately adjoining the Egyptian frontier. This seems to perplex some authors. They had always been there. This was the Old Race of predynastic Egypt--the primitive Cushite type. This was the aboriginal race of Abyssinia. It was symbolized by the Great Sphinx and the marvelous face of Cheops.[15] (Again, see [16]. This is not a "Caucasoid" or even a proto-Caucasoid African.) Take any book of Egyptian history containing authentic cuts and examine the faces of the first pharaohs, they are distinctively Ethiopian. The "Agu" [or Anu, per Petrie and Diop] of the monuments represented this aboriginal race. They were the ancestors of the Nubians. and were the ruling race of Egypt. Petrie in 1892 exhibited before the British Association, some skulls of the Third and Fourth Dynasties, showing distinct Negroid characteristics. They were dolichocephalic or long skulled. The findings of archaeology more and more reveal that Egypt was Cushite in her beginning and that Ethiopians were not a branch of the Japheth race in the sense that they are so represented in the average ethnological classifications of today.[17]

Why do you keep bringing up the sphinx? Once again (this is seriously getting annoying), I'm not denying that Egypt was multi-ethnic and even multi-racial, I simply believe that the majority of the population was "Ethiopid" (note, I didn't say "Ethiopian" since nationalities didn't exist back then, but I mean that they were phenotypically close to modern day Ethiopians). And Japheth race? Please don't bring that bullshit into the discussion. Let's stick to scientific research, please.

Yom 22:07, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

More:

Groups I and II are essentially restricted to Africans and appear to be the most divergent clades within the tree. They show a patchy distribution, with high frequencies among isolated hunter-gatherer groups and in some peoples of Ethiopia and Sudan. Such a distribution was interpreted as the survival of some ancient lineages through more recent population events (Underhill et al. 2001). In particular, Group I, observed in 43.6% of the Khoisan (usually considered to be descendants of an early African population), is present in all of the Ethiopian samples: its frequency is 10.3% in the Oromo sample and 14.6% in the Amhara sample of the present study, and is 13.6% in the ethnically undefined sample reported by Underhill et al. (2000) [emphasis added].

And:

Ethiopian and Khoisan samples within Group I fall into different haplotypes (haplotypes 1, 2, and 5 in Ethiopians vs. haplotypes 4, 6, and 7 in the Khoisan), in agreement with an ancient divergence from the same ancestral population, as has been suggested by microsatellite data (Scozzari et al. 1999).

I already addressed this above. Yom 22:07, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

With regard to Ethiopian admixture:

Groups VIII and IX were also found in the Ethiopians as haplotypes characterized by the mutations M70 (haplotype 28) and M173 (haplotype 29), respectively. M70 was observed in few of our Ethiopians (∼5%), and M173 was found in just one subject in the Ethiopian sample of Underhill et al. (2000). The finding of M70 is intriguing, since it has so far been observed to be widely scattered in several continents at a low frequency (Semino et al. 2000; Underhill et al. 2000). The M173 and related lineages are common and widespread in European and in western and central Asian populations (Semino et al. 2000; Underhill et al. 2000; Bosch et al. 2001; Wells et al. 2001); the observation of one M173 in Ethiopia could, therefore, represent a recent admixture event [emphasis added].

It seems my earlier assertion about admixture may have been correct in light of this and the "back migrations from Asia" comment.

Did dynastic Egypt have its origins in Punt (Eritrea/Ethiopia, possibly Somalia)? Most assuredly. But were the "proto-Caucasoid"-looking Ethiopians the first and only Ethiopians? No. The progeny of a more ancient ancestor were there, as well -- as is born out by archaeological evidence, as is seen in the stone faces of the earliest pharaonic lines. And they looked like (no surprise) the Sphinx. The earliest Africans were not "Ethiopid." And if you look really, really closely at the Sphinx, you will see the face of the Dinka there, or the Kunama. And they are a decidedly Africoid people (in the classic sense) -- pronounced maxillary and alveolar prognathism and all. These are the faces of predynastic Egypt, of Kush, of Meroe, and among faces of dynastic Egypt, as well -- the confluence of the diverse Africoid peoples of the area, branches of this ancient tree -- and not solely one Africoid phenotype or another. Deeceevoice 19:15, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Look at the values you are talking about. Firstly, notice how he says that "the observation of one M173 in Ethiopia could,' therefore, represent a recent admixture event." Very little DNA work has been done as it is a relatively new science, and he does not assert anything. Secondly, I don't deny that there is some admixture in Ethiopia, but I do dispute that it is significant. If you look at the debate on the Kingdom of Aksum on the talk page, you'll see that I show that the Sabaean migration that occured in BC times was thought to have only existed in a few locations, and lasted for only a couple decades before either leaving or being absorbed into the general population, so Yemenis did not represent a major admixture into the Ethiopian gene pool, but rather just a minor one. Plus, there's no such thing as a pure ____. There's degrees of admixture in all populations, they're just usually not significant. Note that the average African American seems to have much more admixture than the average Ethiopian (25% Caucasoid vs. 5% of M70, and one example of M173), and doesn't appear "Ethiopid." As to this sentence: But were the "proto-Caucasoid"-looking Ethiopians the first and only Ethiopians?, I'm not sure exactly what you mean. If you mean Ethiopia proper, then I can assure you that the only ancient skulls found have been "Ethiopid," but that I do not deny that some Khoisan "Capoid" types did exist in Ethiopia proper. If we really mean Ethiopia proper (i.e. the modern boundaries of Ethiopia and Eritrea today), then you'll also certainly find some "classical Africoid" types as well, but these, with the exception of the Kunama (they were called Baria in the past, and inscriptions of Ezana mention them, along with a tribe called "the black peoples," that he conquered) and perhaps a few other groups, the only phenotype present in significant quantities was "Ethiopid." I'm completely ignoring groups in SW SNNPR, Gambella and Benishangul-Gumaz, since they've always existed there and haven't been part of the Ethiopian sphere until relatively recently.

And notice that I said "may" -- to the extent that I addressed admixture. Deeceevoice 15:00, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Again, let's slow this down. I really don't have much time for this. Maybe in a couple of days I'll be able to respond more frequently.

Yom 22:07, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Awww, what are we trying to conclude here, that the Ethiopians aren't really black or not? I mean lets get to the point. Ethiopians are either one of the many variants of the black race, or one of the variants of the white race. If it's not that simple, then lets leave things to relative origins. The Ethiopians live near other Black people (not other white people) so they are Black. All this Caucasoid, this-a-soid, that-a-soid talk is such hocus pocus. You are not going to find Africans uniformly looking the same, there are going to be variations. I wish we could talk about how negroid looking some Europeans are, but that will never happen. Gee whiz, guys, this thread of discussion has been dragged to the ground. The Ethiopians are a Black people, who have skulls that loosely resemble some Europeans, big deal!--Zaphnathpaaneah 01:49, 28 March 2006 (UTC) End of issue! --Zaphnathpaaneah 01:49, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Zaph, this repetition is really getting annoying. Read my comments again. I have never asserted that Ethiopians were white, or anything other than Black Africans. Your problem stems from assigning races to skull classifications. Caucasoid !=White!=Caucasoid and Negroid!=Black!=Negroid. Please stop insinuating things that I have clearly (and repeatedly made clear) not said.

Yom 02:47, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

So this whole looooong discussion in this thread, is merely about figuring out how much Caucasoid'ness is in Ethiopia? M173 DNA admixture, 14.3% hapolyte presence in Oromos, etc, all of this is to figure what out? --Zaphnathpaaneah 14:18, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, Yom, Zaph. I'm sort of in the position Yom was in over the weekend --only the "train" that's hanging me up is a series of deadlines. I appreciate the input into this discussion, but I'll have to beg off for a day. Peace. Deeceevoice 15:00, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Image:Lou Gosset as Sadat.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded, Image:Lou Gosset as Sadat.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you.

Sphinx madness

Actually I'm thinking of proposing an alternative theory: that the Sphinx is actually ethnically Olmec, thus proving beyond the shadow of doubt that it is evidence of an ancient pre-Ice Age Atlantean civilization that once ruled the world from a fleet of nuclear-armed aircraft, the race memory of which is recorded in the Mahabharata. I guarantee 3 people will support such a theory within 5 minutes of it being posted. :-) --Gene_poole 04:46, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Aw, dammit! I was gonna! :p Deeceevoice 05:25, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

While we are at it, lets remove all the references to Caucasoid anything from all Egyptian and East African articles and put "aliens" in the place of that. I'll go for it, what about you Gene? --Zaphnathpaaneah 07:05, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

ThatGuy has finally lost it. He's turned the article discussion page into quasi RfC complaint case (which is totally without merit). I've tried repeatedly to get him to stick to the article, but he's starting to act like JFAS. What's with these people? You can't tell me something sick isn't going on with regard to racial animosity. This is truly pathetic. People seem to have lost (or to lack completely) the capacity for rational discourse. Perhaps Jimbo should require people to take a course in basic logic before being allowed to edit here. Wikipedia is starting to really disgust me again. Deeceevoice 07:38, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

The problem here is that people have been accustomed to Europeanized images of the Sphinx over the years and to a whitewashed approach to Egyptian history. Images of Europeanized sphinxes and the bombardment with fake Egyptian images have been ubiquitous, resuming in earnest with the Egyptomania of the 1920s, after the unearthing of Tut's tomb. And it hasn't stopped. Seen the sphinx at the Luxor hotel & casino in Vegas? The whitewashed French reconstruction of Tut with nearly white skin and hazel eyes? Remember white comedian Steve Martin's song about King Tut, his "favorite honky"? People are so accustomed to this pop culture crap/pap, that when confronted with the real deal, they scream "Afrocentrism." It's the difference between McDonald's and a real restaurant: feed versus food. Tragic that, given a choice, people prefer junk food to food for thought. Deeceevoice 05:42, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Look at the images of Zacharias Massouaui, the last hijacker of 911. He obviously looks black, but the court sketch artists keep painting him as a white looking caucasian arab. Only after he got the death penalty option did the artists magically draw him as a black guy. Amazing "objectivity". How with a living person can they screw up, how much more so with dead Egyptians represented in sculpture. --Zaphnathpaaneah 10:56, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

You noticed that, too? When seeing the "artist's" renderings of courtroom proceedings, I found myself thinking, "Who are they drawing?" Thing is he looks like a homebwoi, like Anwar Sadat, like Prince Bandar. (BTW, didja check out the photo I added to the Anwar Sadat article of Louis Gossett, Jr., playing him in the miniseries? No surprise that User:Zerida, the edit warrior from the Giza Sphinx article, deleted it (as well, my photo of the Fellah girl in Egypt. I put them both back.) Here in the States, they b wearin' FUBU, rockin' locks. :p Deeceevoice 14:02, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Blocked for 48 hours

Personal attacks here and Talk:Great Sphinx of Giza. — Matt Crypto 08:22, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Ha! And what of the others -- notably ThatGuy -- who've been far more offensive in their comments? Typical. *x* Deeceevoice 09:10, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

If you provide links, I'd be happy to warn him. He has not, however, been placed on a personal attack parole (AFAIK). — Matt Crypto 09:16, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Nothing I've said, IMO, rises to the level of a personal attack -- and particularly in light of the provocations. That's what makes this PAP such absolute garbage. I've seen your idea of what passes for a "personal attack," and it's usually just frank-speak. If you're going to block me for a "personal attack," then I'm entitled to know what specific language you're referring to. Let's hear it, Crypto. Deeceevoice 09:51, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Furthermore, your "wrong version" box -- which I suppose is your attempt at being cute -- isn't. It makes light of something very serious: a page on a website that purports to be a useful research tool -- an encyclopedia no less -- frozen in a blatantly POV, blatanly prejudicial, misleading state. You may think that your "position" gives you license to slap such garbage alongside a post which makes a very serious charge -- systemic bias -- but it's insulting, gratuitous and inappropriate. It needs to go bye-bye. Deeceevoice 12:04, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

I see someone else thought the same thing -- and got rid of it. I returned and removed the link to the offending image. *x* Deeceevoice 21:50, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Do not delete or alter my posts again. If the link makes you feel uncomfortable, then you should reflect on what (grossly incorrect) conclusions you made from the act of page protection. — Matt Crypto 22:14, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Your post was blatantly inflammatory/snide. I notice you didn't make a similar comment to Yom when he deleted your post for precisely the same reason. Your little title doesn't give you cart blanche to throw molotov cocktails into a discussion with impunity. You can't play etiquette police and then behave as you've done and have any credibility. The fact is your post contributed abolutely nothing to the discussion -- except to inflame things. Your "humor" wasn't appreciated. In the future, when things are contentious in a forum, it might be best if you kept your smart aleck posts to yourself. If a link in a post is inflammatory, that's grounds enough to delete it. It's been done before. Further, there was absolutely nothing incorrect about my conclusions. They were right on target. Deeceevoice 00:47, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Matt Crypto's blatant, retaliatory abuse of administrative authority

So, you're upset over me calling you on your inflammatory, expunged box, and now you want to block me for a week, huh? You've behaved in such a manner -- yet, you've charged me with making "racist attacks" against you because I feel you're incapable of telling me what to regard as racist, citing your age and ethnicity. I called you what you are, a "white guy half my age," changed immediately from "white adolescent". And that's a "racist attack"?!!! LOL. That should pretty much be proof positive that you are, indeed, incapable of ascertaining what is and is not racist. :p Watch your step, Crypto. You're making this personal. Don't make me take out an RfC against you. Deeceevoice 09:17, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

My actions are, of course open to review and comment by the other admins and the community. However, I don't find your protestations to be compelling. I don't think this is personal. You have, of course, tried to make this personal many times by insulting me. Remember your comments about me playing "Miss Manners with other adults like prissy, pedantic, insufferable, niggling, mealy-mouthed, self-righteous, tattletale brats"? That's personal. Note, of course, that I didn't block you then. Your recent comment was quite racist, and we do not tolerate actual racism (as opposed to imaginary racism) on this website. — Matt Crypto 09:50, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Ha! You've blocked me for far, far less. That you didn't was probably because someone else beat you to it. :p In this case, me calling into question your (apparently obvious) inability to discern what is racist and what is not, based on your age (relative inexperience) and ethnicity (lack of awareness, differing sensibilities) is hardly "quite racist." That you would think so and that it warrants a week-long block speaks volumes alone. It's so absurd, in fact, that I find it hard to believe that anyone would buy such an explanation for the block -- which, IMO, appears personal. But you "don't think this is personal"? And, quite the contrary. This website does, in fact, tolerate blatant racism -- as the Wareware case so clearly illustrated. Further, it has been my experience, as well as the experience of other editors, that there are countless cases of racism in editorial bias, both blatant and disguised, in articles treating black people all over this website. Part of it falls under the widely acknowledged rubric of systemic bias. Yet, you seem, however, curiously unfamiliar with it. We're done discussing this. Deeceevoice 09:54, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Talk Pages

Just as a reminder to all involved parties.

Actively erasing personal messages without replying (if a reply would be appropriate or polite) will probably be interpreted as hostile. In the past, this kind of behavior has been viewed as uncivil, and this can become an issue in arbitration or other formal proceedings. Redirecting your user talk page to another page (whether meant as a joke or intended to be offensive or to send a "go away" message), except in the case of redirecting from one account to another when both are yours, can also be considered a hostile act. However, reverting such removals or redirects is not proper and may result in a block for edit warring. If someone removes your comments without answering consider moving on or dispute resolution. This is especially true for vandalism warnings.

That is all.

Yom 06:43, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Yom, I have repeatedly told JFAS not to post to my page. I will continue to erase his posts without reading them. I can't say how many posts sent to personal pages go unanswered or unread daily -- probably hundreds. If all of a sudden they want to start forcing people to respond to posts or to keep unwanted clutter on their personal pages -- then, good luck to 'em. That is all. Deeceevoice 14:42, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

AfD on Cool (African philosophy)

Just saw your vote. Did you even bother to read the discussion page? Investigate the links to sources provided? There's ample scholarship on the subject. Improve the article; don't delete it. It's an important topic -- and one that would help deal with a glaring subject matter deficit on Wikipedia. Peace. Deeceevoice 17:30, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I think the article consists of original research. Wikipedia is not a primary or secondary source, and WP:CSB is not an acceptable reason to override WP:NOR. Thank you for your message. Stifle (talk) 10:23, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

• I've done it for you per request, since it's more of retraction of comments than erasing it (fair enough), but please avoid having to modify a closed AfD yourself in future. - Best regards, Mailer Diablo 19:56, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Psst

I'd say you're disrupting Wikipedia to prove a point: [18], [19]. Please don't. Friday (talk) 03:35, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Au Contraire. I'm a convert -- a true believer. I'm simply applying the requirements of verifiable, expert sources the way they were applied to the now disappeared Cool (African aesthetic). The sources utilized in Cool (aesthetic) were unmitigated drivel, the text was uncited, or the prose was just downright lousy/confusing. Certainly the sources certainly don't begin to rise to the level of authority and reliability of the published works of a Yale professor and acknowledged expert in the field, or of the other material I cited in the AfD -- which you've chosen to ignore. And then I deleted the stuff about cool in traditional African societies, because that's not pop culture. Oh, dear. There's not much left -- is there? Pretty much the only thing left is what I wrote and the dictionary definitions. Tsk, tsk, tsk. Pity. Deeceevoice 05:01, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. I'd also say you're WP:POINT. — Matt Crypto 08:38, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Assume good faith. I've offered explanations for every single one of my edits. I hope you like what's left. Deeceevoice 09:12, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Your response here speaks volumes about what you're doing. This is disruption, pure and simple. I also notice you've not participated in talk page discussion where I asked about the removals. You didn't get what you wanted with your own personal article, so now you're messing with the article you see as "competition". You even removed a bit from Thompson who you're asserting is a great source on the topic. This sure looks to me like a temper tantrum, not an effort to improve the project.

You really need to learn about article ownership- in short, it doesn't exist here. Want to write personal essays? You're probably quite good at it, but Wikipedia is not the place for it. I suggest you just leave these topics alone and work on something else. You seem way too emotionally involved here. Whether you intend to or not, you're having the effect of a troll. Please stop that. Friday (talk) 13:52, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

See my response below. Deeceevoice 14:53, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

A couple people now have expressed the opinion that your actions here are disruptive. But I see you're continuing to edit by brute force, not using the talk page. Please remember the terms of your probation, which state in part She may be banned by any administrator for good cause from any article or talk page which she disrupts. She may be banned from Wikipedia for up to one year by any three administrators for good cause. If you continue in this fashion, I wouldn't be surprised if someone wanted to ban you from editing the cool-related articles. Friday (talk) 15:23, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Err...so how is following policy disruptive? Guettarda 15:25, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

"Disruptive"? What? Like deleting articles wholesale without first discussion the action?" And "ban [me] from editing the cool-related articles"? Tell me, in light of admi Zoe's flagrant violation of Wiki policy, did you issue the same thinly veiled threat to, or similarly warn Zoe of, the same possible consequence? Somehow I doubt it. Deeceevoice 07:59, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Wow. It takes some gall to violate policy (protecting a page you have just reverted) and then lecturing other people about their actions... Guettarda 15:29, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Following policy isn't disruptive. Edit warring is disruptive. She's now pretending that she's unfamiliar with material she wrote and sources she's been advocating, simply because they're appearing in an article other than the one she created. Check out the history on Cool (aesthetic) and Cool (African philosophy), I think circumstances speak for themselves. Friday (talk) 15:32, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

I wasn't "pretending" anything. I'm using the same arguments which were accepted by the other editors as being valid in "Cool (African philosophy)" (though I completely disagree with them -- but, as I said, I've seen the light; I'm applying what seem to be community standards, rather than my own). And, yes, that's a statement made with calculation. If Thompson isn't good enough elsewhere, why should he be accepted here? You haven't responded to reason and ad nauseam discussion. Thompson and his credentials repeatedly were excoriated and called into question in the other article. The only alternative was to try to get you to see in application the hypocrisy/double standards you and being applied.

Further, I gave a compelling reason why that information shouldn't be included there: it's not about pop culture, which is the explicitly stated subject of the article not only in the article itself, but on the disambiguation page. So, how does a fairly detailed discussion of elements of some traditional Africans culture fit there? Answer: it doesn't. And that is why the act to merge the two documents was a bad one. This very simple, very obvious and fundamental fact seems to have been somehow overlooked by those campaigning for the obliteration of "Cool (African philosophy)."

Finally, that information is now in its proper context -- in an article on indigenous African cultural values (except that it's been deleted without discussion, without justification). If people disagree with my edits and the accompanying edit notes, it's their responsibility to enter substantive commentary in their edit notes -- and not to revert wholesale, which is something I did not do. If my purpose was to "edit war," I simply would have done a wholesale delete all at once, without bothering with individual edits with detailed edit notes: I wanted to make my reasons perfectly clear. Further, it is common for people to revert something twice. It's done routinely on Wikipedia to test the conviction of the opposing viewpoint. A person often will revert or change something because it seems wrong at first glance. Being confronted with that same text again forces the would-be reverter to re-examine the passage more carefully before doing so. That's not edit warring; it's a way of saying, "I really meant to change this. Take another look." On Wikipedia, it's SOP; it happens all the time.

While they may have annoyed some editors, were justified and actually later received support from JFAS, who agreed that the same standards should apply. The stuff I deleted, for the most part, needed to be gone. The article was lousy. Deeceevoice 07:51, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Read my comments below. Again. Deeceevoice 21:47, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

cool deletions

you deleted mass amounts of writing on 17 April 2006 on the page cool (aesthetic) and did not make attempts at explaining or justifying yourself. on the history page your summeraries are as follows:

• deleted. vague and confusing. - please ask for explanation or clarification on the talk page
• deleted - this is a definition for coolNESS -- not cool. -perhaps create a page for coolness
• deleted. unsourced. - use a {{fact} tag

Deeceevoice, please, if you have fundamental problems with the page make them heard on the discussion page. If your definition for cool is different than what appears on the page, there are better ways to approach this. (instead of deleting 90% of the article) please respond on my talk pageSpencerk 14:43, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

My approach to the article is no different from the approach others would take. The text I deleted was not done wholesale. With each edit I made, I made the appropriate corrresponding edit note. The contentions in the article were not cited, and in one case, the source was completely unencyclopedic and not worthy of citation. In another instance, the material was completely off-point -- namely insertion of information on traditional African societies in an article on pop culture. The outside link at the bottom of the page was not only obscene, but utter garbage -- presumably inserted as a prank/vandalism. I've applied precisely the same standards I have come to understand, through the discussion of the AfD for Cool (African philosophy), is now the standard at Wikipedia. In fact, the frivolous source cited was nowhere near the caliber of source materials completely discounted in the now deleted article. I'm applying editorial standards equally across the board. Vague, unsubtantiated language is unacceptable -- and so is off-point article content. What remains of the article, quite coincidentally, is the language I wrote defining pop culture cool. Ironic -- ain't it? Deeceevoice 14:51, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

• hey, where can i find the afd for cool (african philosphy)? i replaced the "various definitions", and theories part, if theres a problem with the source of the book The Rebel Sell, or a pbs documentary, it can be discussed on the talk pageSpencerk 15:10, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Did you even follow the links? The dictionary definitions presented in the article are not supported by the sources named. That's why I deleted them. Deeceevoice

• hi, the links for the dictionary [20]? ok, if its not a good source, maybe {fact} tags? i can try to find a better source maybe later todaySpencerk 15:22, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Co-operation

DCV -
I've observed your history here on Wikipedia with a combination of amusement, admiration, irritation, and sense of creeping doom. I believed early on, and still do believe, that you have a lot to offer. You've perhaps not noticed, but I've consistantly supported you. Your RfC I tried to steer towards positve outcomes as opposed to the pile-on. I called on the help of someone reasonable, intelligent, patient and sort-of-black¹ to try to also assist, one of the best Wikipedians I know. I've put a few editor who were hounding you back in their boxes. I brought this deletion to DrV² and spelled out its history. There may have been a couple of times I've sunk the boot into you, too, but I don't recall.

I'm stupid about race. That I care so little about it is perhaps as odd to you as your attitude is to me. Yes, I'm intellectually aware of the issues that victims of racism face³, and yes I can conceptualise how a lifetime of harrasment can make a person overly defensive. I just can't feel it in my guts. This doesn't mean that I think that it's wrong to care about it, or that I dismiss the ills that can arise from it, just that for me, it's invisible.

What I can understand is how easy it is to keep doing something that's always worked in one arena regardless of the fact that it's harmful in some other venue. I can see that there are without a doubt one or two editors who would love to see you gone, to shut you up, to pretend you (and your information) don't exist⁴. But they are playing by the rules (to some degree) and you are not. You're doing much better, 'tis true.

This can't be that hard to understand. If I came to wherever it is that you lived, there would be social (and probably legal) restrictions that were unfamiliar to me. I'd be given latitude at first, but eventually I'd be expected to understand and obey them. Freedom is never absolute. I'd ask that you compare the measured responds of Monicasdude on 15:13, 21 April to some of your own. Amen indeed.

In the end, it comes down to a very simple question: Do you think it's more important for you to continue to express yourself exactly as you see fit, or to address the underlying problems in Wikipedia's coverage of a topic that you care about? If you'd care to hear it, I can offer several alternative ways to have dealt with the whole "cool" issue that might have worked better.

Please, talk to Xoloz. Better yet, listen to him. It's a fine skill indeed to, with the smoothest and silkiest of kindness, slip the knife into someone who'se an idiot. He's an expert at it.

brenneman^{L} 00:30, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

1. I have no idea if this is the "correct" word, and just as you won't "walk on eggshells" neither will I. That doesn't mean I won't listen to feedback on it, just that i may ignore it.
2. If this is restored from DrV it carries an imprimatur that an AfD decision does not.
3. Today, the Australian Aboriginal community lives thirty years less than the average. On whom has screwed over the blackfella more, I think that America had a head start, but Australia seems to be catching up.
4. But not Zoe. She's not singling you out, she kicks everyone in the head equally. From an encyclopedic standpoint, she's almost always right, but that's another story.

I appreciate the spirit in which your post was rendered, but it doesn't mean much to me. I do, however, appreciate your efforts on my behalf. But it's not I who needs to pay closer attention to Monicasdude; it's those who make and enforce the rules at Wikipedia. You seem to have missed this contributor's central point. Wikipedia is dysfunctional; it functions to encourage and protect cretins like .... I'm not mentioning names here. The problem is Wikipedia, not with me. In the corporate world, I'd freaking own Wikipedia, having sued it for every asset it has. No matter that it's only a few servers, etc. The lawsuit and scandal would cause this hell hole to lose every last bit of credibility it currently has.

Your characterization of me as "overly defensive" makes me want to laugh. Hardly. This is enemy territory for me. Or don't you get that yet?

And if Zoe "kicks everyone in the head equally," then perhaps she needs to be stripped of her admin privileges. I think it's classic Wikipedia that someone like you would write what reads like a shrug, "Oh, that's just what she does" and then presume to counsel me on how to comport myself. And "she's almost always right"? Well, hell. Not from where I sit. Her behavior in these matters hasn't been even remotely acceptable.

Your communication reads like, "You just don't get it. You need to learn how to cope here." No. It seems that you don't really get what's going on with this website, just how deeply systemic and pervasive the racism is here, that it's part of the way the system works. And until people recognize that -- really recognize that -- they will continue to excuse and shrug off conduct like that of Zoe and Crypto and Rob Church and then turn to me and counsel me to "learn to cope." Will all due respect (and no animosity whatsoever), f*** that.

I think Wikipedia management (whoever the hell that is) should seriously consider calling in and paying someone with some common sense and expertise in such matters some serious money to review how Wikipedia functions as a virulently racist, white-dominated system and offer some concrete suggestions regarding the nature of its rules and governance structure. Because unless and until you do something decisive to deal with the cancer that is feeding here, Wikipedia will never be what Wales hopes it will become. And it will continue to lose talented, knowledgeable, intelligent, well-read editors like Furious Freddy and The Encyclopedist and, yes, like deeceevoice. deeceevoice 02:36, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

"... who's screwed over the blackfella more....

I just read: "Today, the Australian Aboriginal community lives thirty years less than the average. On whom has screwed over the blackfella more, I think that America had a head start, but Australia seems to be catching up."

I don't know about that. Have you asked an Aborigine lately? White folks didn't just steal them from their country; you (collectively) stole the whole gottdamned country and shoved them onto crappy reservations -- U.S. style vis-a-vis Native Americans. At least here, Native Americans own the natural resources of their lands. Aborigines in Australia don't; it can be raped, defiled, plundered and degraded without so much as an "excuse me." You kidnapped their children to be raised among you. You killed them pretty much randomly and at will, like vermin. What Tasmanians the savage French didn't kill, the British and their military and their damned, depraved convicts, finally exterminated. (In slavery, enslaved Africans here generally had some measure of protection in that we were regarded as an asset/property.) At the Sydney Olympics, everyone made much ado about the nod to Aborigines. Everybody got all warm and fuzzy over it. Yeah, it was nice --for a moment. But what's really happened there to objectively change the power equation since? Their standard of living? Their educational opportunity? Employment? Empowerment?

There is no Richter scale for human suffering, and I'm not an Aborigine, so I wouldn't dare presume to say my people have suffered more. But I can tell you this: you're wa-a-aay behind the U.S. it comes to doing right by Australia's original people. Australia needs to step it up. The Aborigines, like the Tamils in India, like a lot of oppressed people of color around the world, and like a lot of disadvantaged groups regardless of color), have taken more than a few pages from our struggle here in the U.S., and they're moving and organizing and agitating for their rights, their lives and their children's future.

If you're not involved in the Aboriginal struggle for equal rights and a better quality of life, you might consider it. Your (presumed) relative comfort and success have come at a great cost to them. You owe them. deeceevoice 17:58, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to reply. A couple of quick point in order of importance:

• I thought that what I said was clear: Australia is catching up in doing the screwing over meaning that I agree with you. I've re-read what I wrote four times and it still says that to me, so it's perhaps an anti-podean thing what with oblique double negatives and all. Sorry that that wasn't clear.
• With regards to Zoe at least (I haven't looked at MC's contributions in this area) you're conflating "general bad behavior" with "systemic bias." Not saying that I agree or disagree with either one being the case here, but that it's important to stay focused. The underlying rule-set attempts to be unbiased. Someone with an agenda can attempt to push their personal message by ignoring the rules, but someone can also just not like following rules. While "Racist→Idiot" by definition, it doesn't always follow that "Idiot → Racist."
• Finally, as to "learn to cope," I'll say again: That's what happens all the time everywhere. New neighborhood, new job, country invaded, new step-parent, whatever. It's almost always more effective to agitate from within the accepted boundries. We've had, to repeat the unfortunate parallel from the administrator's noticeboard, several self-proclaimed paedophile apologists who've edited fairly succesfully. This is enemy territory only if you make it so.
  

brenneman^{L} 02:18, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

"This is enemy territory only if you make it so." That doesn't even merit comment. deeceevoice 04:01, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Your recent edit to Cool (African philosophy) was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to recognize and repair vandalism to Wikipedia articles. If the bot reverted a legitimate edit, please accept our apologies – if you bring it to the attention of the bot's owner, we may be able to improve its behavior. Click here for frequently asked questions about the bot and this warning. // Tawkerbot2 12:30, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

A real article for you to delve into

Use those powerful skills of yours to educate the writers of American Exceptionalism. they seemed to have magically forgot some things. I've already started with just a small contribution, which I expect will generate a storm of controversy (even though it shouldn't... thus which is controversal in itself). But participate. This article is a good one. --Zaphnathpaaneah 04:44, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

To quote a song from Les McCann and Eddie Harris, "'Real' compared to what?" Right now, I'm so swamped with work (a happy thing), I don't have time for much. What time I've had lately for Wikipedia has been wasted with stupid admin proceedings. But I'll check into it. Peace. deeceevoice 08:48, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

History of Cool

The page history is at Cool (African aesthetic) - even though the page is still (illegitmately) protected, the history is available. Guettarda 12:22, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Elvis (Really!)

Hi Deecee. Perhaps you vaguely remember my username from attempts to defend the AAVE article from cracker morons. (Luckily they seem to have turned their attentions elsewhere, for the most part.) I'm not a Presley fan, but I think he deserves a decent article as much as the next (dead) guy, and I also think people deserve a decent article on him (as on others). The article is long, intermittently illuminating, but as a whole quite dreadful -- and of course typical of most WP articles on "popular culture". Well, I was asked to help sort it out, and put hours into it, but finally gave up in disgust (see this). Later a new truckload of slurs persuaded me to edit some more. The only interesting bit in it was the claim that "Elvis stole black music". This claim has been made several times previously, but never with the slightest effort to explain. As I've said, I'm happy to read clear, documented charges -- but I've given up hope that any of the people who frequent Elvis Presley will bother to produce them. My own uneducated guess is that Presley was a very important cog in an entertainment industry that mostly reflected but sometimes aggravated the pervasive racism of the times. But I don't have the time to read up on it, and I've a hunch that you could do better. Thanks for considering it; or if not, I hope that this unexpected suggestion has at least given you a good laugh. -- Hoary 13:46, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Hey. :) Sorry, but contributing to an article on Elvis is almost at the bottom of my list of things to do, but I appreciate you stopping by. Peace. deeceevoice 13:46, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Can't blame you, Deecee. Well, in tribute to the King, me 'n th' missus watched a DVD of Almost Elvis [redlink, tsk tsk!] this evening. A most entertaining movie -- though I still don't feel desperately anxious to go and buy any records or DVDs of the King himself. Happy editing! -- Hoary 15:48, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Lest it be lost in the tumult

I'm bringing your attention to a reply I made to you at Wikipedia:Deletion review#Cool (African philosophy) - the reply beginning, "So, if it should be merged..." I fail to understand why one would request the undeletion of an article that just needs to get merged as soon as it's undeleted. -GTBacchus^(talk) 05:26, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

The note accompanying my vote, I think, states my position. deeceevoice 03:23, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Ok, what if we get all of the content that Zoe deleted merged over into the history at African aesthetic? Then her deletion doesn't stand, because the content is all restored, and it's restored to a more useful place, and we don't have to mess around with recreating an article in a location where we're not trying to keep it? Would that work, for you? -GTBacchus^(talk) 05:51, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

I long ago raised that option, but I don't believe anyone responded to it. (I stopped following the matter.) deeceevoice 13:43, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, from where I'm standing, it looks like the most sensible option. We'll see what happens. -GTBacchus^(talk) 13:45, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Deeceevoice, please read my last reply at the DRV discussion. I'm certain there's a misunderstanding - all the edits that you made at Cool (African philosophy) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) can actually be found in the "history" at Cool (African aesthetic) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Please check and see for yourself that this is true - just look in the histories, and find your edits. That DRV really needs to close, and I think we're within one small misunderstanding from consensus. Please review and comment. -GTBacchus^(talk) 00:30, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Thank you very much

I am more than happy to accept your apology, and want to thank you for the obvious sincerity in which you offered it. I hope we can work with each other in the future. User:Zoe|^(talk) 20:39, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Deal. deeceevoice 23:36, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Star Jones

Fascinating. I can't wait to see how they spin their excuses for this ANTI-biography of Star Jones. Honest to God, I had no opinion of her. I hard heard of her a few times, and I never paid attention. I decided to just read Wikipedia to find out more about who she was. Well now, ok firstly, she's black, and secondly (no big fat surprise), she's treated like shit in the biographical article. --Zaphnathpaaneah 08:32, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

About religion (since a collateral-damage block prevents me from responding on your talk page)

Now, where the hell did I say "it takes sex to 'see' God"? And wait just one f'ing moment. "Temple prostitute"? This discussion is so done. deeceevoice 11:26, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Sadat

Hi Deeceevoice, I took interest in your Sadat picture dispute having spotted it in passing and was sympathetic to your complaints. I've tried to find all kinds of ways in which the two pictures could be incorporated into the article, but I think they're right, there is no room for two and the Egyptian production should really take precedence. Sorry I can't help in this matter but feel free to contact me on my talk page if you have any other issues on wikipedia that you believe need highlighting. Hopefully I can offer a more favourable response! --Zleitzen 00:09, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

I find the contention (yours and theirs) that there is no "room" for both absolutely absurd. I don't see the article running out of space. deeceevoice 09:45, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

cool

hey deeceevoice, what do you think about the cool page, theres been lots of work by other people the past few days. origins section mostly. Spencerk 20:15, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

It's sloppily written, wholly unsourced and grossly inaccurate. Need I say more? If I'd written something like that, people would be all over it. I'd say bomb the thing and start all over again. It's beyond terrible. deeceevoice 20:38, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Unwelcome

Justforasecond, you have repeatedly been asked to never post here. Deeceevoice is perfectly within her rights to delete your note here. Please keep discussions such as these to the relevant talk pages (in this case, Talk:Ron Dellums). Thanks, — BrianSmithson 20:42, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Brian. As usual, I deleted JFAS's message -- without reading it. deeceevoice 03:09, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Cool?

I have a hard time understanding why all of us have gotten so caught up in the cool article. Aren't there more important words to work on? "Cool" should most definitely be included in an on-line encyclopedia because of it's popular use (sadly), but I don't know if this particular four-letter word deserves such undivided and ill-tempered attention. Luv-eech-other.--Mikepope 05:48, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Beats me, too. The article as it stands now is really terrible/amateurish and uncited. I've pretty much moved on. deeceevoice 06:38, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Racism on Wikipedia

I think you bring up a very interesting and important point on your user page about the inherent bias of a technology based enterprise. I've honestly never thought of it before, but I'm glad I saw it. I still believe that Wikipedia is over all a Good Thing, and that the vast majority of the bias is unintentional, but I also think it's important that more people be aware of it. Short of complete social/economic restructuring in this world, do you have any thoughts on how this bias can be overcome? B.Mearns^*, KSC 17:37, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Unintentional bias -- particularly when it comes to misinformation and parroting disinformation -- is still just as damaging as deliberate bias. The project is appallingly racist through and through. And, no -- short of stopping white folks from editing altogether. :p If there were an online black encyclopedia, I'd probably leave this website altogether -- something I'm not far from, anyway. I've pretty much stopped writing articles; it's an utter waste of time -- fighting battles with the intentionaly obtuse; the arrogantly ignorant, yet highly opinionated; the tragically misinformed. And those are just the people who halfway mean well. If you're interested in the issue of systemic bias, then click the link -- if you haven't already. Peace. deeceevoice 05:10, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

How exactly would a black encyclopedia differ from a white encyclopedia? Anyone could still browse to afropedia.org.--Urthogie 09:07, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Racist and/or ignorant interlopers would be dealt with much more quickly and decisively. And we wouldn't waste time arguing about fundamental things about which there is already a common knowledge base (like about the origins of cool, for example). And it wouldn't function like Wikipedia, so that appallingly ignorant people couldn't edit war and argue ad nauseam about something just because they didn't think something was factual. That's for starters. deeceevoice 11:24, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

In other words, you wouldn't have the aggravation of having to deal with people who think differently from yourself. It wouldn't be NPOV, but would be just as slanted as a "KKKpedia", but in the opposite direction. Sounds segregationist to me. *Dan T.* 12:16, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

DT, I deleted your post and then decided to restore it. (My impatience is showing.) First of all, news flash: not all black people think alike. Secondly, your allusion to a "KKKpedia" seems to indicate you think that a bunch of black people can't get together to write intelligently about matters of interest to black people without it turning into a virtual lynch mob? Another, IMO, simplistic and insulting conclusion. Another news flash: separation and segregation are not one and the same. Would you level the same charge at, say, asianavenue.com, blackplanet.com, or migente.com? Your post is utterly illogical, simplistic and nonsensical -- hence my impatience. Finally, with an Afropedia, there would be a critical mass of black folks working on the project -- enough that among them there would be more than one or two people working earnestly on an article, and -- a plus for people like you -- some black folks with the patience to respond to comments like yours. Because I -- admittedly -- don't have much tolerance for it. deeceevoice 13:40, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Seems to me the idea for an Afropedia is more a critique of wikipedia's inherent biases than a segregationist vision. Thinking all black people think the same or are the same is the attitude engendered when living in a rascist society - mostly this isn't intentional ignorance but it is ignorance all the same - I speak from experience, something the majority of wikipedia users lack, being young. Not all white people are unconsciously rascists but I would guess that the majority of those without substantial experience of other races and/or cultures growing up in a developed English speaking country are so, SqueakBox 14:26, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

I'd be interested in seeing how it turns out if you start it up. One thing you might consider is starting a wikicity-- which, as far as I know, is free. From there you might be able to expand your project. As a sidenote, it seems to me as if new systemic biases would likely pop-up in an afro-pedia-- in my experience at an almost all black school it wasn't a big deal to anyone, for example, when this girl told my Japanese friend to "go eat some rice, chink." I think that systemic bias would pop up in a new form. But I definitely support the initiative.--Urthogie 14:32, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Unconscious rascists attitudes are found in all sections of a rascist society, especially amongst young people who are by definition psychologically unconscious (a lot of adults remain that way). Whil;e I believe that mixed race societies is the ideal it simply isn't the reality. At wikipedia we are told we must write articles that reflect how things are not how we think they are, and given the existence of racial divisions it would be another encyclopedia project attempting to write about how the world is. Deecee's criticism of wikipedia is that technologically minded under 50 white people isn't a reflection of the world as it is, which is unquestionably so, and that we shouldn't be reflecting our own white, first world, English under 50 technologically minded biases in an encyclopedia that is allegedly about everything, SqueakBox 14:56, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

I wasn't disputing DCV's point about bias at wikipedia, I was just pointing out that a new encyclopedia might just replace an old bias with a new one.--Urthogie 15:30, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Which isn't really an argument against the idea. I'd be happy to be able to read about similar topics at Wikipedia, Afropedia, What-have-you-pedia, compare what they say and form my own judgement. The various 'pedias would probably learn a lot from each other. -GTBacchus^(talk) 15:39, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

If I implied that "all blacks think the same", then I really didn't mean this: I'm perfectly well aware that, for instance, one can't expect Bill Cosby and Al Sharpton to see eye to eye on all issues. I was more trying to say that what Deeceee seems to want is a more "monocultural" encyclopedia where she doesn't have to face opinions from outside her comfort zone; her tendency to "delete unread" comments she doesn't like is an indicator of where she's coming from. That leads me to believe that she would be just as aggravated by the presence of dissenting voices on her own 'pedia even if it were within an all-African-American group of editors. *Dan T.* 16:01, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Reads like back-pedalling to me. That's certainly not what you wrote. Precisely how would stating the need for a black wiki mean, "In other words, you wouldn't have the aggravation of having to deal with people who think differently from yourself" -- unless you intention was to state that all black people think alike? The fact is I love spirited debate and a substantive exchange of ideas -- but all too often here, the other side has nothing it is capable of offering, or even willing to offer to an endeavor -- other than incessant cheap shots, complaining, whining, grousing, intellectual provincialism and arrogance, backed by little more than ignorance and an intellectual (and I use that term loosely) obtuseness when faced with learned scholarship that defies all rationality. deeceevoice 17:36, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

DCV, I have a question for you that might help you understand why some people find your attitude to be racist. What would you think of a white editor who said that Wikipedia can never work as long as those damn blacks are allowed to edit? If someone made that remark and wanted to start an all-white encyclopedia, folks would see this as very racist, and rightly so. The answer to racism is not to respond with more racism in the other direction. Racism is the illness, not the cure. Friday (talk) 16:14, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

I hate to burst your bubble, but I really don't care what white people think. Whenever a white person calls me racist, it doesn't faze me in the least; the charge is that absurd. It's been my experience that most white folks who like to sling that word around, directing it at black folks, don't have a clue about what it really means. Your post, frankly, is no exception. Further, please note the (:p) after that specific comment. The fact of the matter is that Wikipedia is crippled by institutional racism -- and I'd love to see a black Wiki. Whether it ever comes about, it really doesn't matter to me one whit that you or others find the idea "racist." deeceevoice 17:18, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Isn't "I really don't care what white people think" a racist statement? If somebody were to say "I really don't care what black people think", then wouldn't you regard that as racist? I certainly would. *Dan T.* 21:22, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Gawd. I rest my case. Think whatever you want to. deeceevoice 21:29, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Hm. Friday, do you think the existance of Black Studies departments is racist? Anyway, the problem isn't white people or black people, the problem is rampant assholism -- and any venue that says Anyone Can Edit, be it Wikipedia or usenet, is going to be a magnet for immature jerks. The main advantage of a Blackipedia would be size -- a lot fewer people would participate, a lot fewer bad apples would be available for the occasional barrel-poisoning. It's a bell curve thing -- the larger the sample size, the more people on the fringes of the sample -- and the larger the sample size is, the more damage that tiny fringe percent of utter assholes can cause. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 16:47, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Wow, look what I started. There's so many people watching your talk page! Anyway, I certainly agree that unintentional bias is just as devastating as intentional (quite possibly more so, because you first need to convince people of the problem), but I think it's an important distinction to make because I really believe the two require very different treatment. In this case, where I strongly believe that intentional racism on wikipedia is rare (other than from vandals, at least), I think the best tool for fighting it is education. For instance, do people really understand where this bias comes from? Have they ever considered it before (speaking for myself, it never occured to me in relation to wikipedia till I came across your page)? Do they understand the 400 (500, 600, 700...) year old history behind it, and the numerous historical and contemporary efforts that have been used to battle it's root causes? I'm thinking the answer to most of those questions is no, for the most part.

While I don't see any problem with starting a black-focused pedia (how is different than an African American society on a college campus?), I also don't think it's really going to solve the problem. The primary complaint here seems to be that the demographic of users on wikipedia does not represent the general population, but neither will the demographic of your encyclopedia.

The crux of the matter is that a certain demographic of americans are much more likely to a)use a computer, b) own a computer, c)have access to the internet, and–some may argue–d)participate in a project like wikipedia. It also so happens (though not really by coincidence) that this same demographic are likely to have been raised in a setting where misinformation or lack of information has caused a generally unknown and largely unacknowledged bias (not to mention a sometimes-subtle sometimes-blatant attitude of being more informed and therefore more correct), which is hard enough to fully supress when we are aware of it, and damn near impossible to when it goes unrecognized. So once again, my long trip around the river and up the dirt trail brings me back to the point that education and awareness are the most important and powerful tools for overcoming this problem.
B.Mearns^*, KSC 16:53, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Yep. The situation you describe w/regard to the technology gap and the demographics of this site is pretty much what I've already described (though I wasn't writing of strictly Americans), as well as the arrogance of opinionated ignorance. And because the situation obviously cannot be remedied with Wikipedia, there is, indeed, a need for a black wiki community. deeceevoice 17:23, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm all for a black wiki, or any wiki for that matter, but my question is: wouldn't systemic bias arise from it, just like here?--Urthogie 17:41, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, quite possibly; but I'd rather not have to fight some of the stupid battles I've had to fight here, like being targeted/dogged, or having to explain rudimentary sh** when it comes to black people, black history and black culture and deal with people's "issues" around race and racism and often outright hostility for daring even to mention certain issues. All that garbage I could definitely do without. And the biases would be of a somewhat different nature -- and what a welcome difference that would be. :p With another outlet, at least those voices would have a clearer sounding board, a better opportunity for expression than here, where all too often potential contributors become frustrated and simply split/stop contributing because of the constant b.s./hassles: e.g., Furious Freddy, The Encyclopedist, Monicasdude (I assume he's black), me. deeceevoice 21:05, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

definitely but that is the nature of these wiki projects. You would still need literacy, access to both a computer and the internet and to speak English to contribute to an English speaking Afropedia, SqueakBox 19:58, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

And, were this other Afrocentric encyclopedia to succeed, wouldn't one of its effects be to increase the institutional bias of Wikipedia, by diverting some of its diverse voices away from it and to the other encyclopedia instead, making what remained more "whitebread" than before? *Dan T.* 21:22, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Probably -- but, IMO, Wikipedia will never be a reliable source for information/coverage of the affairs of Africa and the diaspora; it's a lost cause. And as it stands now, from where I sit, some of the most prolific, literate, intelligent and learned black contributors to Wikipedia have already left in disgust. Further, this website certainly isn't the be-all and end-all of online sources. A fresh start with regard to the affairs of black people is most definitely in order. deeceevoice 22:53, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

There's one thing you fail to acknowledge though: ignorant editors are supposed to make pages better. When an ignorant editor comes to the Holocaust page to point out one unverified fact and try to deligitamize the whole thing with it, people just verify it more, and bulletproof it-- thus creating a more reliable source on the subject. Guessing someone's level of knowledge (or lack thereof) on the internet-- a relatively anonymous medium-- is impossible. Perhaps the only way to make a good online encyclopedia is to have ignorant people-- constantly testing the verifiability of statements. A lot of your wikistress seems to come from the fact that you just get mad at people when they demand verification for things they don't know. Calling them ignorant just causes edit wars, but responding with edits on the page makes the article better.--Urthogie 18:09, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Don't twist my words. I am not writing about people asking questions. I'm writing about people who are abysmally ignorant of a subject, yet highly opinionated -- and who refuse to accept well and widely respected scholarhip, all the while offering absolutely nothing substantive to bolster their utterly groundless and erroneous opinions. Gee. Sound familiar? It should. deeceevoice 18:33, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

(assuming you're talking about the cool article...) I'm not highly opinionated on the subject. Nowhere have I stated a strong opinion on the article-- in fact I was interested in seeing the article verified, something which you refused to do. As far as widely respected scholarship, that isn't a basis for verifiability-- just because smart, respected people say something, and it isn't criticized, they aren't necessarily the voice of truth. This was my only opinion on that article-- not an opinion about the subject itself, or about you.--Urthogie 20:27, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, cool and any number of other articles. And I rest my case. The record speaks for itself. deeceevoice 21:56, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Best of luck if you do go for the new Afropedia project. Perhaps if I see it around I will try to add something on the Afro-Honduran experience, a subject very close to my heart, SqueakBox 00:27, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, SB. :) Your contributions of any sort would be very welcome. BTW, you may want to weigh in on User:Robchurch's (IMO, scandalous) bid to have his admin privileges restored.[21] I've done so. deeceevoice 20:12, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Negative attitudes

It seems that a lot of what you have to (or want to) deal with around here is the disparity among views inherent in individuals resulting from the nature (and the nurturing) of people. I think it's a nearly impossible battle, one against the nature of people. Why do you stick around here? What do you like about Wikipedia? I have to assume that the only reason you are staying is that you feel some sort of hope that the concept of Wikipedia can succeed. Why cause yourself the pain of sticking around someplace where you feel that you are unwanted? I can only imagine what you must feel in the "real world". The way I see things is this: if it makes you happy, then do it; if it causes you pain, then don't do it. I do not intend to criticize you in any way, I'm only curious. Is there any joy in your life? J. Finkelstein 16:57, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Are you in analysis? A shrink yourself? I ask because you seem to want to put me on the analyst's couch. I've stated repeatedly my reason for "sticking around" here, and I never once said it caused me pain. A little advice: don't project what you think you might feel in a similar situation; our experiences and temperaments are not the same. Further, it seems to me that only someone who doesn't have a life outside of cyberspace would dare presume, based on someone's participation in a website, to ask, "Is there any joy in your life?" The assumptions and presumptions involved in a message such as yours don't even insult my intelligence; but one could say they possibly call into question your own grasp of reality/understanding of human nature. Rather than being "curious" about my feelings, my life, my motivations, perhaps you should be more interested about the nature of your own assumptions and what caused you to craft such an, IMO, off-the-wall message in the first place. A negative assessment of a tragically flawed enterprise is not the same as having a "negative attitude." Your seeming complete lack of understanding of this very rudimentary fact, IMO, betrays a certain bias and renders your "curiosity"/inquiry about my personal life and psychological and emotional state completely worthless to me. I'm not in the business of satisfying the "curiosity" of strangers about my personal life; it's, frankly, none of their/your business. deeceevoice 17:06, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Okay then, sorry. J. Finkelstein 18:06, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Apology accepted. deeceevoice 18:35, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

And I owe you one. I just noticed that you're a member of the Esperanza project. As such, I'll have to allow that your inquiry may have been occasioned by a genuine desire to be helpful. Didn't mean to stomp on you with both feet (sorry for that) -- just to let you know that your presumptions were way off the mark and not appreciated. But your good intentions are. Peace 2 u. deeceevoice 20:58, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

"Shit happens" :). I want nothing more in this world than for everyone to find love. Hey, I saw all that Nazi stuff that people left on your page, is that real? I seriously can't believe people actually still do that kind of stuff. That's messed up, man. J. Finkelstein 21:55, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

a note on User:Robchurch's (new) bid for adminship[22]

Hi Deeceevoice, We haven't crossed paths in a while. I just wanted to drop you a line that Robchurch is back up at RFA and your name has come up a few times, as I'm not sure RFA is on your regular Wikipedia rounds. I had followed the tail end of the previous business leading to his resignation and, while I'll probably sit this RFA out, thought you should have the opportunity to give input if you wish. Best, BanyanTree 01:28, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up. I've registered my opposition. It's pretty disgusting that this guy has been up for adminship several times since he disgraced himself in December by flat-out lying in an ArbCom proceeding -- and people are placed on probation for an entire year for far less. The man's apology wasn't even an honest one; he never admitted to completely fabricating the e-mail -- which he did. Yeah, I accepted his apology, but the man should be required to sit out adminship for at least a year. There's absolutely no fairness at all in this stinking cesspool. I've posed some questions for him. Let's see what he has to say for himself. deeceevoice 03:19, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

I was wondering if there was a thumbnail description of this email incident you're talking about? I don't know anything about it and it sounds like something that would certainly impact my opinion on Rob's RFA. Is there an outline of the issue somewhere? Thanks...Rx StrangeLove 05:29, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Here's the charge Church made, then recanted, saying he'd lied about me, because he thought he was acting in the best interests of the project -- and my response.[23] And note that while he recanted his characterization of my e-mail -- one which I never sent -- he never admitted to lying about the very existence of any communication between me and him.[24] deeceevoice 06:22, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

I've gone back and entered questions to RobChurch about this incident. I'm awaiting a response. And thanks for asking. It shows you're open-minded and willing to actually deliberate -- instead of just rubber stamping Church's nomination out of sympathy, or ignorance, or whatever. I don't doubt the guy has been an asset to Wikipedia in some ways, but his despicable conduct is far too serious to simply overlook and reinstate his admin privileges so soon after the fact. deeceevoice 06:31, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

I just read the nominating statement, which is extremely disingenuous/misleading. I entered a statement about it -- which probably will be moved. But the nominator seemingly deliberately downplays the nature of Church's offense -- which was pretty egregious -- and then claims that only "after some time" did he ask to be reinstated as an admin -- when, in fact, the man waited less than ten days after he fabricated evidence before the ArbCom. Just amazing. *shaking head* And people wonder why some of us are so disgusted with this website and its b.s. double standards. deeceevoice 16:48, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm wondering if you and several people have been actively campaigning against this particular request for adminship? Kim Bruning 08:40, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm not certain what you mean by "actively campaigning." Someone called the bid for adminship to my attention, and I weighed in -- nothing more. I don't know if anyone mounted a concerted effort to stop RC's adminship bid. IMO, I think his civility issues ultimately doomed the nomination. I notice you voted for him. If you're looking for some sort of anti-RC conspiracy, you're on the wrong talk page. IMO, this time the process worked.deeceevoice 08:48, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Ah well, I just thought I saw some slightly odd pattern in edit summaries, and figured it was just my imagination. Once in a while my imagination does find something real by accident, though, so it always pays to ask. Sorry to bother. Thanks for your time! :-) Kim Bruning 10:20, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

(I'm puzzeled by your removal of the strikeover above. We had established that no one did anything wrong, so the question simply did not apply. I must admit that this attention to detail makes me curious. Kim Bruning 16:33, 29 May 2006 (UTC) )

Your question remained for me to answer, and I answered it. It's part of a give and take. It's not as if you asked it, others read it and perhaps even commented upon it, and then you decided to retract it, but keep it for the record, even though you no longer wished a response. There's no point in overstriking a question once it's been the subject of dialogue. I opted to eliminate the overstrike because it served no useful purpose. deeceevoice 16:37, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Ha. Amusing. I just finished reading your message. "... this attention to detail makes me curious." That you would return to strike out your own question after it was answered (certainly not normal behavior) -- and then question me about restoring it -- seems even more curious/quirky! Well, I guess it takes all kinds. Regards. deeceevoice 02:23, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Colonialism

Hi! I see that you're part of those whom have a problem with systemic bias, so I take the freedom to point out to you those two articles, human zoo, which needs copy-editing & watching just in case..., and historical revisionism (negationism), where I once tried to include negationism of the Rwandan genocide and of the Srebrenica massacres, but I lost patience... Beside, I've been looking for somewhere where maybe there were some discussions about Wikipedia policies concerning listing & categorizing people, dead or live, according to political/religious/philosophical opinions or sexual orientations, which I personally am totally opposed on privacy concerns. Keep in the place, I've been trying to improve colonialism and Scramble for Africa recently, there's a lot of work to do, but if it may teach one single thing to the reader — and the editor — it's worth it. Lapaz 06:24, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Your efforts to counter the site's pervasive systemic bias are much appreciated and sorely needed. I'm crunching several tight deadlines this holiday weekend, and don't have much time to devote to Wikipedia. (I use it as a destressor these days when I need to take a break.) Further, I'm not contributing much new substantively these days; the project, frankly, has begun to bore me -- fighting the same old battles with the same old obstructionist mind-sets. It hardly seems worth the effort, and a lot of good editors are gone. I don't know how much I'll be contributing in the future. Peace. deeceevoice 15:21, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

• I use it as a destressor these days when I need to take a break. I'm really glad to hear that; that attitude should save you a lot of aggravation. Caring too much about Wikipedia has costs not justified by the results. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 02:28, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Yep. I learned that early on when I came to realize the project's extreme limitations and pervasive bias. It'll never be what it needs to be; by its very nature, it's enemy territory. IMO, conscious black folks should enter knowing that up front. And knowing that, there's no point sweatin' the crap. :p deeceevoice 03:31, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Sadat

I am referring to your comments regarding Sadat and the fellahin in the Egypt article discussion section; you claim that the actor chosen to portray him in the Egyptian production is more Arab than black and that is not true the actor was black the fact that he may not fit what you think is black doesn't change that it merely comes down to perspective. And what you say that dark skinned is undesirable well that is as far as it goes in Egypt when I was born that's what my granfather's first word was Dark. Egypt celebrates its dark aspect in many songs and in many aspect of our culture. Racism in Egypt is not as pronounciated in the states and predominantly white countries. And any racism in Egypt today is not an Egyptian tradition but that of colonisers. There is no rift between people who are dark skinned and people who are lightily skinned except for the presence of majority in different regions. Fellahin are not dark skinned in general Saaida are more dark skinned and they are considered two seperate entities and even then I know blonde saaida. Egypt is mixed in every shade and people don't really care about ur colour, we dont identify as being black or white simply. If you are confused by being a citizen of the great United States of America you have right to be so but until there is a solely black movement in Egypt calling for an end of racism and segregation don't presume to know. Zakaria mohyeldin 08:48, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Ignoring the other aspect of the argument, Ahmed Zaki is clearly not black, Zakaria. He is African, but not black (or even very dark-skinned - swarthy maybe, but not dark-skinned); he was even born in the Delta (which is the most Mediterranean [i.e. in looks] of facial features in Egypt, isn't it?).

ዮም(Yom)^{Leave a message} 08:59, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Zakaria, your comments ring false. It's typical, though. It's the same way a lot of Latinos react -- and they know that color bias is rampant in Latin America, as well. It's all around them; they're merely in denial. I know people who've been to Egypt, and they tell me about the racism of light-skinned Egyptians. Here's a link.[25] and another[26]. The racism of Egyptians (and of Arabs, generally) is well and widely known.

Anwar Sadat was himself half Sudanese -- very clearly, a black man -- and during his lifetime wrote of the insults hurled his way as a youth because of his dark skin. The Egyptian government was positively beside itself when it saw Louis Gossett, Jr., a dark-skinned, African-American man cast as Sadat. Gossett, in fact, looks a hell of a lot more like Sadat than the (relatively) fair-skinned chubby-cheeked Arab-looking fellow (if he's "black," I'll take your word for it; I've known several black folks who easily could pass for white) chosen to play him for Egyptian audiences. He didn't just happen to be a lot fairer than Sadat was in real life. There certainly was no shortage of dark-skinned Egyptian actors for the role. It was like someone casting Jennifer Lopez[27] to play the part of the late Celia Cruz[28] -- a ridiculous choice -- and rationalizing it because they are both "Latina". But it was a calculated choice -- and one perfectly in keeping with the modus operandi of Egypt's Arab government. The rabidly afrophobic Zahi Hawass of Egypt's pompously named Supreme Council of Antiquities is one of the most outspoken and vociferous of this ilk, instigating the whitewashed reconstruction of Tut unveiled with fair skin and hazel eyes (the gall of some people!), flat-out lying about how the French and American teams pronounced Tut a "Caucasoid North African" -- an assertion strenuously denied by Susan Anton of the American team. (I'd be happy to forward her e-mails.)

Egypt is an African nation. Always was and always will be. Yes, it's had Arab overlords for several centuries, and much of the country has been Arabized, adopting the Arabs' religion and their values, including the deep-seated Arab color bias and, in some cases (as is evident in Darfur, and the ongoing slave trade in black bodies and the exploitation of other blacks/dark-skinned peoples, like the Bangladeshis for example, for economic purposes and carnal pleasure in the GCC nations), a pathologically virulent, even militant, afrophobia -- but that won't change the fundamental identity of its indigenous people, who are black Africans.

You may continue to deny it if you wish, but I know differently. And there are many Egyptians who have actually told me, shamefacedly, about the racism of their countrymen and of their government. And, indeed, "Fellahin" is considered in some quarters an insult.

So, before you lecture me on what I can and cannot "presume to know," perhaps you should listen to some of your own countrymen and women who do not feel compelled to parrot the party line and choose, instead, to open their eyes and speak the truth. deeceevoice 09:37, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Wouldn't that make him half-sudanese ("black"), and half-arab?--Urthogie 13:34, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't know what his other parent was, but you look at the guy, and he's clearly a black man. His other parent could have been simply a black Egyptian or an Afro-Semitic Egyptian. He certainly doesn't look at all Arab -- not in any way. In his everydays, Sadat could've sat down Ben's Chili Bowl on U Street here in Deecee and not drawn a second glance as anything other than a drylongso African-American man. The salient point here is the Egyptian government purposefully selected an Arab-looking Egyptian, rather than a black African-looking Egyptian (which is what Sadat was) to play the role. Why? Because of classic Arab skin color bias and rampant afrophobia. deeceevoice 14:10, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Well first I reread what I wrote and it was written at 4:00 a.m. at the time so my rhetoric might seem cranky so no offense intended. Going the racism that occured against the Sudanese refugees is something that surprised me but that is explainable in the article you presented itself due to rumours and others. Anyway the word fellah is considered a slur not because of colour but because of connotations that imply being poor, ignorant and backward thought. I myself am a fellah and proud to be one and call myself that and I'll say it to anyone at anytime. You say that the north of the coutnry is arabized that's true to a certain extent except that most egyptians deny being arabs, second the coptic community in Egypt is considered not to be arabs as they didn't mix with them they trace their geanelogy back to the pharoahs, and they themselves aren't black in the american sense of the word and most of them present the closest resemblances to the images of the pharoahs a claim that will be furiosly refuted by any muslim reading the article. We are Africans and no one attempts to refute that or maybe some do I don't know. My sister passes for black in the american sense I don't though i don't pass for white either. Africans look different all around Africa and there is racism in Africa between different races both being black remember the tutsi and the hutus in Rwanda. The previous classification of White caucasoid and black negroid are no longer viable today East Indians are caucasoid yet they're not white obviously. I hope that I helped clear some of the issues available. Waiting to hear your response. Here's a link to some pictures of the actor that portrayed Anwar Sadat his appearance differs in all of them. [29] p.s. I am aware of Zahi Hawas's propaganda I haven't heard of Aphrophobic but I know of his Anti-jewish beliefs of who built the pyramids and anti-alien and ani-atlantis views. Which to me is all a bunch of hog wash too, it was the Egyptians who built the pyramids. I personally don't like the dude though. Zakaria mohyeldin 07:03, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

On another note I'd appreciate it if you don't use the word Swarthy I didn't understand it and when I read about it, it said that it was sometimes considered offensive and is used in a derogatory manner. And what does chubby cheeked supposed to mean really, are you saying that arabs are all chubby cheeked is that something bad? Zakaria mohyeldin 07:10, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

That was me who said that. Swarthy was sometimes considered offensive, but generally is not. It's certainly hard to consider it offensive coming from an Ethiopian! (the original offense was because light-skinned Nordic Europeans were calling Mediterranean Europeans darker in color) If you really don't like it, though, then I won't use it.

ዮም (Yom) | contribs • Talk 07:37, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Well no not really I just wasn't sure in what context it was being used but it's cool, you're from ethiopia "Al habasha" my family has decendants from Ethiopia my best friend here is half ethiopian half egyptian which language do you speak he speaks amharic and tigrinya I can understand some words from the tigrinya. Zakaria mohyeldin 08:07, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I talk a lot I know but one more thing the Egyptian government reacts like that to any American/U.S./Foreign interpretations or representations of Egypt a fact that has made them refuse over 80% of the movies about Egypt or set in Egypt to be filmed on location that is largely due to fear of misinterpretations and centralized beauracratic restrictive policies. Zakaria mohyeldin 08:24, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

hi dave chappelle

good to see ya. WɔlkUnseen 05:09, 31 May 2006 (UTC)