User talk:Urthogie/archive/

R&I
Mahalo (thank you) for your contributions to the Race and Intelligence article. Your focused discussion and pertinent edits are greatly appreciated! --JereKrischel 02:26, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Brilliant
I see that you are now redefining articles to allow the easier insertion of your POV. Thanks for making it even more impossible to get these articles, which some of us have worked on extensively, into coherent shape. Libertatia 19:02, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Last comment here, but I believe it was you who "brought the bullshit" to my talk page in the first place. Libertatia 23:31, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Inadvertent deletion??
I just noticed that in your edit to [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_anarchist_communities&diff=97230194&oldid=96808396], you not only restored your two boxes at the top of the page, but also deleted several dozen edits I made to the page to improve it's handling of citations.

Was your deletion of my several dozen edits intentional or careless?

If intentional, why? Lentower 22:37, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

User account blocking 75.25.204.215
What are you talking about as to your comment about the above with your comment: "How is one to assume good faith for a user who goes so far as to talk to his own accounts to push his ridiculous POV?--Urthogie " ?

trueblood 02:14, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Who was blocked ?
I am confused was the user above blocked or user sidique because I looked at the above user and I dont think he was blocked ?

trueblood 03:23, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Help on Editing
Can you look at the article Aga Khani and Islamic Cults and see what you think, please post your opinion on the discussion page,I would like as many people as possible to put in their views to make these articles proper

Thanks

trueblood 03:30, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Black supremacy
We need to talk about the text you replaced. Please see the talk page. futurebird 20:57, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

ANCIENT EGYPTIANS

"I thought that those busts were made during the 26th (or was it 25th?) dynasty... too long after menes for them to know what menes looked like. Correct me if I'm wrong. I may be on this point. Provide sources and dates, please."

Who said they were made in the 25 or 26 dynasty? who questions the time frame they are supposed to be found in? i think its your turn to get sources for this claim. as far as i know they are authentic from the first 3 dynastys.

"Because most people are ignorant, and don't know that the Egyptians looked unique and were a mixed-race society"

so professional egyptologist are ignorant and dont know the difference between a mixed race person and a semetic looking one? its got nothing to do with them being biased right?

"Several things. Domestication is a big one. There wouldn't have been a sizable population if domestication wasn't introduced first from the Fertile Crescent (cirac 6000 BC). There's more stuff, but you should read up on your history if you want to know."

domestication wasnt introduced from elsewhere, The Nilo-Saharans had granaries By 7200 or 7300 BCE, and sedentary sediments. didnt you know that

"I honestly don't know much about them. From the little I have read I would say they were of mixed-race, most of their ancestors were likely from the Western Desert. How does that relate to this exactly?"

it relates to things because everything advanced in africa seems to be according to you and a lot of other people interested in ancient history mixed race, never black african. the badarians are from the south the same culture and colur of the nubians. check out ian shaw- the oxford history of egypt.194.176.105.35 02:04, 31 January 2007 (UTC)viola

"What do you mean, "my turn"? That implies that you've sourced anything thus far. You haven't. You initiated this conversation-- you even chose the points we'd discuss-- its your liability to present evidence for your points, and me for mine. This is your point. Defend it."

er you are the one who said they may of been made in the 25 or 26 dynasty so it is up to you to prove it, is there any egyptologist who questions the age of the busts if not we have to assume they were made when the pharoah who they were made after were alive. the only people who i know said they were made in the 26 dynasty is the people who moderate stormfront.

"You asked me about "most people", not "most Egyptologists". Please don't switch around your questions. Most Egyptologists are accurate if they're published in peer reviewed respected scientific journals"

i ask a simple question about bias. if the mainstream beleive in a mixed society then the programme should reflct this and not just put semetic people as the egyptians.

"First off, you can have granaries without domestication, and you can have sedentary settlements without domestication. Second off, the only Nilo-Saharans who there is any evidence of them having developed domestication independently were the Ethiopians and some parts of Sahel (most of Sahel was not Nilo-Saharan, only a small portion of it was). Third off, even if these two places independently developed domestication (the proof is shaky-- their crops may have been domesticated in Southwest Asia first), but I know of no proof whatsoever of either of these two places transfering domesticates to Egypt"

ok mainstream like keita say it was a cultural transfer of crops from asia to egypt. the other things that made the culture of egypt was totally african from the south.

"A study in 1972 of their remains found them to be mixed-race. They are not the same culture as the nubians. Every culture of people is different-- respect human diversity. The reason science says Egyptians were mixed race is because that's what the evidence shows. Egyptologists today sometimes even go out of their way to avoid bias-- Tut's image for National Geographic was created by researchers who were not told who it was or where he was from"

cranial studies like the one stroahl did are hard because the masai may be thought of as mixed race or white is seeing a skull.the king tut looks nothing like the guy from his staues busts and funeral masks. i do respect human diversity. but the badarian and naqada are located in the south. there is no proof what so ever except wishful thinking that they would of been anything but black african. http://www.ancient-egypt.co.uk/metropolitan/index_1.htm194.176.105.35 03:16, 31 January 2007 (UTC)viola76

yeah no problem take as long you want Viola76 06:24, 31 January 2007 (UTC)viola76

Thanks 4 the word
I am happy to hear your honesty, It would be worrying if the whole world agreed, so its all good. Racism has to be wrong period, and that applies to Arab supremacy and Afro-supremacy, its all bad. I honestly believe in balance, and equality. the entire map of the Ha Shoah into popular culture deserves respect (wish Africans would do the same). The debate above looks very tempting but i will stay out of Egypt for now. God has a test for us & it is clear killing each other isnt making him happy.Chow my friend--HalaTruth(áááá) 04:16, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Questions on Zionism, etc
Thanks for your questions. I'll try to answer them. First I'm not Chomsky or Finkelstein but their POV is similar to mine on many issues. I do not know that they would agree with me. But to explain my POV--and I hope I'm logical--I'm against all States. I'm not an anarchist, either; I see States as a necessary evil given the current state of human civilization. Some are better than others. None should ever be glorified, nor treated as an end, but rather as a means to an end, that end being peace, security for ALL, democracy, people before profits, equality ect (essentially progressive values). Note I'm an anti-nationalist. Nationalism, I hold as a reactionary ideology that doesnt service the best interests of mankind and leads to treating some people better than others. There should be no "me first" thinking on the individual or group level. They are all ethically repugnant and a prime ingredient to racism.

Of course States should never be supported when they rest on the oppresssion of others. I oppose all conquest and imperialism, past and present. As far as states created by conquest, what is important is current oppression, i.e. ending it,(esp. state-sponsored) that are in the bussiness of building based on conquest of others. This must be opposed equally in all cases, which a special responsiblity for those you can have the greatest effect in changing, stoping, i.e. if I live in the US, I have a special responsiblity to speak out against things this countries does (directly or indirectly as in the case of support for Israeli occupation).

As for the meaning of a national homeland, it could mean the country of origin and native land of a people who have a strong cultural connection and history within such a territory, a cultural geography. There are many ethnic groups who holds a long history and a deep cultural association different country or geographical regions, in particular where the national identity began. And, diffferent groups can live in peace side to side, with different language, cultures, co-existing with the same country, united under the common accepted cultural norms of democratic values. This does not negate a national homeland, only having it based on the oppression of others. Hence, I'm able to be for a national homeland for the Jewish people in the land of Israel while at the same time I'm anti-Zionist and advocate for a Binational solutionGiovanni33 07:06, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I have difficulties with the notion of an ethnic state but I recognise that people have the desire that they should exist. (However, I have a real problem with comparing the state I'm a citizen of -- the United Kingdom -- with Israel, because an "English state" doesn't really make any sense to me, and is a difficult concept these days, not one subscribed to with much vigour by people of goodwill.) In any case, the Jewish people want a state of their own and I think that although it is a difficult concept (solely because of the difficulty of ethnic states in a world that has become somewhat multicultural), the case for its existence is strong. I am not sure whether another solution for where the Jewish state should be should not have been considered, but in any case, it is where it is, and I think that that should be the basis for any discussion of the future. Anyone who is unprepared to accept the continued existence of the Jewish state on some portion of the land it currently occupies would need to explain why Israel should be considered any differently than other states that were created by dispossession but whose basic legitimacy is not generally questioned. The country I now live in springs to mind. Australia was created in terrible circumstances, but it now exists. I don't think anyone wants a solution that involves its destruction, and if they did, I do not see how a constructive dialogue could be had with them.

I understand too that Israel has legitimate security concerns. In part, these stem from hostility towards its existence, although these concerns have surely lessened as it has normalised its relations with some of its neighbours. In part, they stem from hostility towards its continued harsh treatment of the Palestinians. I need not go into other reasons Israelis have for security concerns: that Jews should fear other nations who insist on a fixed ethnic identity is an understandable outcome of history.

However, it seems to us, looking from the outside, that those concerns are hijacked by aggressive nationalists, who wish a larger Israel for various reasons. We call them Zionists because they are strongly nationalist and the original Zionists were nationalists in the broader sense, not because they want a state of Israel. I don't have the time to write any more at the moment, but perhaps I will when I have more. I don't entirely share the Chomskyan view of Israel (he's not sufficiently realist in my view: in the ideal world we'd all live in communes and love each other, but it's not and we don't) but I am on "that side" if you know what I mean. Grace Note 08:01, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

egypt
EVIDENCE CONCERNING BLACK EGYPT

with quotation marks type in

"KHARTOUM MESOLITHIC" "KHARTOUM NEOLITHIC" "NABTA PLAYA"

additional

http://www.homestead.com/wysinger/nabtaplaya.html

lots more peer reviewed sources:

http://www.homestead.com/wysinger/keita.html

some will be usual to are discussion. Viola76 04:39, 9 February 2007 (UTC)viola76

I dont know what your view is. but my view is that ancient egypt from predynastic was "black" african. the culture came from the south. my view is egypt became more mixed as time went on. but the original egyptians were "black"Viola76 04:45, 9 February 2007 (UTC)viola76

I can recommend some forums where the participants in them are students of egyptology,genetics,anthropology and archaeology and will answer any questions you have on the ancient egyptians.

1.http://www.forumcityusa.com/index.php?mforum=africa

2.http://www.egyptsearch.com/forums/ultimatebb.cgi ubb=forum&f=8&DaysPrune=45&submit=Go

Viola76 05:33, 9 February 2007 (UTC)VIOLA76

what are you talking about my evidence of black egypt is in those links your just trying to stall. those studies are peer reviewed so please deconstruct them please and tell me why they are wrong. i can use as much evidence as i want to prove my point, what do you mean stick to one piece of evidence. now show me your peer reviewed sources that support your view of the ancient egyptians.Viola76 21:40, 9 February 2007 (UTC)viola76

It seems somebody deleted the continue discussion page we were on. if you didnt get the last reply i put there tell me and ill reply again.Viola76 02:06, 10 February 2007 (UTC)viola76

Heres what i wrote:

lol, urthogie, we both know there is no such thing as race, we both used race in our discussion, we know it isnt scientific to use race but we say it socially, i know it ,you know it and keita knows there isnt such a thing as race. But to stop you from stalling and distractions like this: example

PERSON: the ancient egyptians were a black race"

URTHOGIE: "define black race, the ancient egyptians were not a black race because races does not exist"

So here is what people mean when they say the original ancient egyptians were black.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=bN1KYkeBYTk&mode=related&search=

1.Now deconstruct the sources that are relevant to our discussion that i have left above and tell me why they are wrong.

2.Show me your up to date peer reviwed sources that prove your view point on the ancient egyptians

Viola76 02:25, 10 February 2007 (UTC)viola76

"First off, I love the soundtrack. Erykah Badu is one of my favorites. But youtube is not a scholarly source".

"I've provided sources for what I've said..and"

"I'll deconstruct what you supply if its scholarly"

1.Are you saying the ancient egyptians didnt look like that? lol again you are using the busts as if it is my only evidence .the you tube thing is about the fact of what the original a.e looked like and the argument of stopping you using distractions like this:

PERSON: the ancient egyptians were a black race"

URTHOGIE: "define black race, the ancient egyptians were not a black race because races does not exist"

2.no you have not where are they. show me peer reviewed sources that supports your view of A.E. stop stalling and show me. your the one who keeps on going on about sources with everyone.

3.lol Are you saying people like keita,skittles,ehret,wendorf and schild,zkarzewski,A.j boyce,kobusiewicz and others are not scholarly? face it you have no answers to the information i have provided and you are just stalling.

P:S Are you sure it wasnt you who made someone get rid of the discussion page we were having. Viola76 06:37, 10 February 2007 (UTC)viola76

"You are the one making claims right now. I don't need to source someone elses claims. That is not how an argument works. You do the work for youself, and I do the work for myself. Since I am not making a claim right now, it is your job (as the person that is making the claim) to provide sources. So far your sources have failed, so you think by asking me to provide sources you can win the argument."

I did do work for myself, i deconstructed up to date peer reviwed data and came to the conclusion that the original Ancient egyptians and their culture came from the south i.e sudan and west i.e sahara. if we dont use peer reviwed sources then we are just giving our opinion without backing it up with evidence. lol of course you have to provide sources to use as evidence in discussions i.e sources. lo my sources havent failed, again, deconstruct the sources and tell me why they are wrong. correct me if im wrong but is your claim the A.E were a mix of arab looking people and black african and meditereanean people. at what time frame did they mix. Are you saying people like keita,skittles,ehret,wendorf and schild,zkarzewski,A.j boyce,kobusiewicz and others are not scholarly? simple question.Viola76 21:55, 10 February 2007 (UTC)viola76

AfD nomination of Canonist
I've nominated Canonist, an article you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but in this particular case I do not feel that Canonist satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion; I have explained why in the nomination space (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and the Wikipedia deletion policy). Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Articles for deletion/Canonist and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ). You are free to edit the content of Canonist during the discussion but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Sandstein 19:24, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Response left to our discussion on my talk page. Thanks.Giovanni33 01:14, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

WP:CfD
I wanted to explain my comment on the Hip-Hop CfD in more detail. CfD is for discussion, not exclusively for deletion like the other 'fD' areas. Once a category is brought to CfD (for whatever reason), almost any of the outcomes could happen to it. Surprisingly often renames get deleted instead, deletions get merged or listified, things get kept. The problem with discussing this category on its talk page is that very few users ever go to Category talk pages. The problem specifically with the category you created is that it is one that is likely to cause WP:BEANS, and other users who have less experience with categories may go off and be WP:BOLD and try to subdivide the parent category 100 different ways without consensus. If the category is deleted, I would recommend going to the talk page for WP:ALBUMS and try to build consensus within the folks who deal with albums. I hope that this explanation is helpful to you. ~ Bigr  Tex  23:42, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Activism
Tupac Shakur did speeches at the Malcolm X Grassroots in 1992 and 1993, late in his life he was doing speaches to encourage people to vote. He also guaranteed a political party in time for the 2000 election. License2Kill 00:05, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Advice requested
I've been attempting to overview and tidy up the geography cats which involve the places where people live. From the top level down to local neighbourhoods. There has been some overlapping and various mis-routings. It's been interesting looking at it all. However, there appear to be two useful ways of doing it - by region, and by size. And these can operate side by side quite usefully. The by region isn't a problem. But the by size has become difficult because User:Hmains wishes to use the term settlements to cover all sizes of communities, and has altered dictionary definitions to fit his own understanding of the term - . Community appears to be the term used most often to describe the places where people live, regardless of size. This is the definition of community -. I did some sorting, placing the cat Human communities under Human geography. Human communities splitting into Urban geography and Rural geography. And those splitting into appropriate sized communities - cities, districts, neighbourhoods, villages, settlements, etc. Hmains has reverted much of my work, and insists on settlements being the term we should use - basing it on | this decision, which was a declined proposal to rename Settlements by region to Populated places by region. What do you think? Is settlement an acceptable term for covering human communities ranging from well established cities down to refuge camps. Is Human community a viable alternative? Are there other choices (apart from populated places of course!)? I have started a discussion here and here, with the above wording, but no response as yet. I have left this message on the talk pages of active Geography Project members. And then on this page. I am a bit lost as the best place to discuss this issue. I don't want to delete or rename any category. And I don't want to get into a revert war. I'd like an open debate to reach sensible consensus. I'm now leaving this message on the pages of WikiProject Category members. Can you advice? SilkTork 19:35, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Discussion taking place at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (settlements) SilkTork 11:27, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Indie hip hop
As you think the article is entirely original research, how about you propose it for deletion? --Oscarthecat 21:13, 25 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree. You have compelling arguments for the complete artificiality of the Alternative Hip Hop page, and I think you should use them to propose it for deletion. You're right, Alternative Hip Hop IS a made up genre, and that's why there are no sources either denying OR supporting it. --IRua 18:18, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks!
I love making graphs. Could you help reword this new intro? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_and_intelligence/Intro

I think it's important to make the point right from the start that some kinds of research have fallen out of favor, and I think we can easily source that. However, we don't want to give the impression that nobody reputable uses IQ tests or race in any kind of research. It's more the tendency to use both and then go running and leaping to the conclusion in the face of other evidence that there must be genetic differences causing the test score gaps that has fallen out of favor.

People like Steele and others accept psychometrics. futurebird 03:54, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Do you know anything about this?
? futurebird 05:45, 27 February 2007

unhelpful
''LOL. Rbaish, you must be unaware how sane and rational you make DCV look.''

I thought this was unhelpful. futurebird 19:24, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I'll remove it then.--Urthogie 19:30, 27 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks. futurebird 19:32, 27 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I was just making fun of him because he seems to be this white supremacist sympathizer who actually does his foolish cause harm, like an anti-semite who talks so much about "made-up" jewish history books that people go out and read about the travesties commited against the Jews. Just found him incredibly ironic.--Urthogie 19:34, 27 February 2007 (UTC)


 * OK. It's not a big deal. futurebird 07:13, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I hope my recent comments at "cool" are not too harsh. futurebird 07:13, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I'll drop you a message with my reply, soon. Thanks.Giovanni33 23:05, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

take a look
Could you take a look at the new article I've created Race and health ? futurebird 17:27, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Great save on Campusj deletion discussion
Hi Urthogie,

That was a perfect argument on the deletion discussion page. Please incorporate some of that in the article and you shouldn't have deletion noms in the future. There are only a few votes now (and you should add yours in the style the other people did, with a bullet and Keep in boldface, although I assume any administrator who looks over the discussion will count you as a "Keep", but if the admin is busy or distracted he just might miss it). I think after your comments the article will definitely stay, but we'll see. The delete supporters will need to have a consensus, which almost always means something well over a majority. Best, Noroton 01:03, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

"race and Egypt"
I must say the present version looks much cleaner and saner to me than most of what's been there for the past year or so. Maybe best work from it than reverting to the disastrous state the article used to be in. regards, dab (ð³) 16:51, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
 * alright, I see I picked an inopportune moment :) I'll peek in again some later time. dab (ð³) 16:54, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Got up, on the floor...
...cuz your link brought it all back from way back when and made us get down boogie oogie oogie. Thanks for cheering me up. :-) ---Sluzzelin talk  00:18, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Urthogie.
My first question naturally is whether you are Jewish and if so how would you define yourself in terms of various characteristics? For instance do you believe in God? Are you Jewish by birth and ancestry or by decision to become a Jew? Virtually all of my questions relate now to the characteristics which define Jews that some may claim make them Jewish and others not or even reject. From this I intend to develop a hierarchy of characteristics which hopefully will not have to remain dynamic but which at least some parts may prove themselves to be stable.

Thanks again for your offer to help. Being able to define and classify Jews according to such things as their attitude toward money and God and non-Jews will help me be able to argue that not all Jews can be lumped into one single category and then condemmed. Not only that but its just interesting to me all of the variety which might be found thropugh the pursuit of such a project. A similar study of Christains revealed the Hutterites to me which since I believe in the divinity of Christ and communal life is possibly the perfect religion for me. By doing such a study Jews may likewise find a particular group which better reflects their true feelings, beliefs and practices than the one with which they are currently envolved.

Thanks again... 71.100.166.228 00:52, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot 07:50, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

What have you done?
Why would you delete that whole alternative hip hop entry? It was wonderful! I used it all the time!

It should be brought back! This is ridiculous! âThe preceding unsigned comment was added by Canucksfan06 (talk â¢ contribs) 04:53, 17 March 2007 (UTC).

Those are very short questions
That could prompt me to write a long response. (and I did once on Okedem's talk if you want to look it up if you want the extenda-version).

I will just say that I don't believe in religiously or ethnically defined states of any kind and I'm not a nationalist (though I love many aspects of Palestinian cultural life and am a bit of politics buff). I'm pretty much against all "isms" as well. I hold a live and let live kind of philosophy that doesn't jive too well with the meta-environment I live in.

But I'm also a bit of a senitmentalist and I love knowing that my grandfather and his grandfather and his grandmother and her aunt and so and on walked these same paths, and touched some of the same doors (stuff is old here!). I don't think I have more of a right to be here than anyone else because of that, but it makes me happy to think about it.

I think that probably answers your questions is a connect-the-dots kind of way. :) Tiamut 23:12, 21 March 2007 (UTC)


 * An exercise in reflection . ..

You wrote: "I would support a non-ethnic pure liberal democracy too if I felt it would be a safe Jewish homeland, but this seems extremely unlikely, considering the history of the Palestinians before 1948, and also recent developments with Islamism. Perhaps one day these negative changes will be reversed (although I doubt it), but I'm forced to support a two state solution until the Palestinians practice consistent non-violence"

Now if I write: "I would support a non-ethnic pure liberal democracy too if I felt it would be a safe Palestinian homeland, but this seems extremely unlikely, considering the history of the Israelis before 1948, and also recent developments in Jewish fundamentalism. Perhaps one day these negative changes will be reversed (although I doubt it), but I'm forced to support a two state solution until the Israelis practice consistent non-violence"

How do you feel? Tiamut 23:39, 21 March 2007 (UTC)


 * You didn't answer my question though. How does it make you feel? (and I've changed Judaism to "Jewish fundamentalism". Zionism isn't an equivalent. It's more of a secularly-based political program with some religious adherents). Tiamut 23:48, 21 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for clarifying. I guess that's where we fundmentally differ. As someone for whom Palestinian is a key part of a complex identity, I don't want to be separated from them. And as a human being who believes all others are innately good at base, it never makes me happy to hear that people do want to separated from one another. It's a huge failure of communication manifested at a system level. And it can be resolved. But not by pretending there is a good people and a bad people. We are all just people and we have to share the earth together. The stronger system can't just build walls around an entire people with a weaker system and lock them up and throw away the key. That's called collective punishment. And it doesn't help to build mutual trust and understanding. In any case, thanks for clarifying. I now understand where you're coming from. Tiamut 00:00, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Palestinians were not always suicide bombers. It took four decades after their dispossession and displacement in 1948 before the first sad and twisted soul perpetuated that kind of act. I would argue that we are where we are precisely because of a refusal to acknowledge one another's grievances or understand each other's historical and present-day sensitivities. Making blanket arugments about an entire people doesn't bode well for the future.

Is Israel going to start testing "Palestinian-ness" among its Arab citizens and start deporting those considered just Palestinian enough to walled in territories? Where does this path lead exactly? Is Israel's solution to the problem of "terrorism" and "anti-Semitism" to build ghettos? How do walls prevent home-made missiles? I think it's better to drop the assumptions about one another and accept that people and their behaviours are dynamic, not static and respond to circumstance and history and many other factors. But it's safe to say, that is you build a wall around a group of people, they're going to devote thier entire existence to trying to tear it down, and it only delays the inevitable day of settling accounts (or mutual annhilation). Tiamut 00:22, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Zionism(?) and settler colonialism?
Hello. As it pertains to the comment on the section "Settler colonialism in Israel", I'd like to point out that Stanford is a reliable source. If you care to show me just which sources are unsuitable to be included, I'll look for alternative sources but please discuss with me which are trustworthy and which aren't.

Secondly, I don't mention Zionism in the entry (though it might be implicit), and Zionism in it's primary stage has already reached its goal, which is the encouragement of immigration, assisting the absorption and integration of immigrants, fundraising on behalf of settlement and development projects in Israel, the encouragement of private capital investment in Israel, and mobilization of world public opinion in support of Israel.

Addressing your argument about genocide and persecution, I will not endorse or censor the moral right Jews (or any other people of the earth) have to go back to what was/is/should be their homeland. As a mexican, I'd say that the condition of a practical scapegoat argument raised by the people who persecute jews can raise sympathy for the jewish people, but to jump from sympathy to uncritical endorsement of everything they do because it is good per se is a huge leap of faith. Also, if you cared so much about the accuracy of facts stated in the article, you would have noted that in the section "Settler colonialism in Latin-America" there aren't any citations or references. Did you read the entire article? Why not be concerned with its entire integrity, rather than just fixing what (based on what I see from your contributions) seems to be your special interest? The section referencing Mexico could be making outlandish or outrageous claims, it is funny that nobody that deleted the section dealing with Israel cared to notice anything else in the article. Did you see I've been the only one who has made edits to the article? Since when is an article in a perfect form when just one contributor has written it? They didn't change a thing apart from that section. Please, don't make yourselves look as the "Israel-related-changes" patrol.

Also, I see you have primarily dealt with Middle-Eastern topics, while the article I created is part of an effort to counter systemic bias in Wikipedia. I am not saying you are patrolling articles and new additions or anything of the sort, but so far, it has been people who either speak hebrew as a native language or have some sort of emotional involvment with the topic the ones who have reverted the article. You mentioned in one of your edit summaries that I had been spreading a link "falsely", and urged people to look at my contributions. I looked at yours and it seems you've been consistently editing articles having to do with Israel and Palestine. Why have the persons who revert the article considered I'M biased, when it's them who could be biased? Besides, in other parts of Wikipedia, Original Research and POV are tagged and dealt with in a discussion, not just deleted outright. Why not put an OR or a Neutrality tag? Don't make look your efforts to keep Wikipedia clear of POV look like censorship. --Rodrigo Cornejo 19:43, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

You needen't worry, the article is so biased that I already nominated it for deletion. You can rest assured it'll be deleted. Cheers.-- Teh Original Mr. Orange (Orange juice?) 01:39, 26 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I wasn't every saying we should delete it... Wow. Can't we find a middle ground here and just work on the article?--Urthogie 01:56, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I wrote on the talk page "Please discuss any changes or additions with me, I'll be glad to see how we can improve it." and I didn't get a single positive word about additions or improvement. Instead, nobody minced words when it came to telling me how stupid the section was, how biased I am, and the idiot I am because I used unreliable sources. Seems like I wrote an authentic piece of rubbish with no redeeming value. -- Teh Original Mr. Orange (Orange juice?) 02:08, 26 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Man, I'm sorry you had that experience. People are harsh because they are used to people pushing POV's-- don't take their insults to heart.  Just try to source statements per Wikipdia policies, making sure to follow WP:UNDUE.  I removed what you had because it didn't comply with that given policy.  If you read through all the policies you can find out how to make edits that will be relatively "safe" from reversion.  Good luck man, and stay bold, don't get pissed off at this internet bullshit.--Urthogie 02:13, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Keep up the good work
At Social construction. That article has been bothering me for awhile now but you had the initiative. Thanks. The Behnam 19:28, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I'll keep an eye on it. The Behnam 19:32, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

edit summary
This edit summary: "rv blanking. if the background info, presented neutrally, is "argumentative", perhaps its just that the facts themselves speak the truth out here)"

was inaccurate. One paragraph had been moved, not deleted or "blanked."

In the future please attempt to give accurate edit summaries that inform other editors. There is a difference between disagreeing and misleading. Jd2718 05:19, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

The paragraph move was illogical, as I explained in a previous edit summary-- the term in the top section is "Israeli apartheid", not "apartheid", so logically a discussion of background info on "apartheid" wouldn't fall under the former.--Urthogie 05:21, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

That you disagreed with the move does not justify an intentionally dishonest edit summary. We should all expect better. Jd2718 05:23, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

3RR
You've just violated 3RR on Allegations of Israeli Apartheid. Please revert yourself. Jd2718 05:22, 27 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Ok, I'll revert myself. Please discuss though.--Urthogie 05:24, 27 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you. As a start, you will find (and not just from me) major opposition to changing the balance in the (minimalist) lead. (adding a new first section is effectively a lead edit). We don't have true/untrue or fair/unfair up top. The link already exists (at bottom). Does yhis info add to the article, and if so, where else can you insert it? Jd2718 05:33, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Regarding "Apartheid in Australia"
You are 100% correct that my speedy tagging was unwarranted. I apologize for my error.

(If you're wondering what I was thinking, earlier today somebody created "Adobeacrobatreader" (sic) with two sentences, and it was speedied because the content was discussed in Adobe Acrobat Reader, and a redirect was unnecessary. This, of course, is a different case.)

I'll accept your request to help out. Once you've updated the article to your satisfaction, leave me a message and I'll try to look at it. By the way, you have my permission to remove the POV tag. YechielMan 06:44, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Allegations of Islamic apartheid
I posted my concerns regarding the article. I currently don't see the sources to support the article, but am open to you showing me otherwise. There's simply a lot of sketchy attribution as it is. I'm a little tired, so I hope I didn't sound curt; I appreciate your shows of good faith. Mackan79 05:21, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

FYI
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Allegations_of_Israeli_apartheid&diff=118494753&oldid=118494279 Zeq 12:09, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Allegations of Israeli apartheid
Hi. Sorry if I removed something; I was just trying to undue the POV-izing of the text and removal of other things. I saw something on Jayjg's page that took me over there and I agreed that some of your edits were a bit POV so I reverted one of them. Again, it was done in haste so I apologize if I took out something uninvolved. Thanks for feedback. The Behnam 16:03, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I especially saw the changes to the first sentence as unnecessary and POV. The Behnam 16:05, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Allegations of Israeli Apartheid
Why are you placing one individual's "quote" in the lead like that? I think it's inappropriate and POV. Thanks.

Also, why are the lead to Israeli Apartheid and Islamic Apartheid inconsistent?Kritt 22:07, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Allegations of appartheid in Australia
Sorry, but I disagree about why there are so few references.

Move it back to the main page and expand it until it is clearly notable in isolation of the international page.

Sub-pages don't exist in article space, every article has to independantly assert individual notability - and this one doesn't, only one of the references provided shows a direct allegation of appartheid in Australia the others imply that South Africa got the idea from Australia, which is a totally different issue regarding the history of Appartheid in South Africa - or History of Apartheid in Australia if you wish. But it isn't an allegation of appartheid existing in Australia.Garrie 01:17, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Israeli apartheid
You need to garner consensus for your changes. Please do not remove requests for citation tags. Catchpole 22:43, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Your edits are disrupting the article and please try to work with other editors. I see that Idi Amin has taken a prominent position in the article over Jimmy Carter and Desmond Tutu, two Nobel Peace Prize winners. Don't you agree we have to be neutral and fair?? Kritt 07:01, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

You have been blocked
You have been blocked for twenty-four hours for violating the three-revert rule at Allegations of Israeli apartheid. When your block expires, please strive for consensus rather than edit warring. If you feel this block is unjustified, you may contest it by adding to your talk page. Heimstern LÃ¤ufer 07:00, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Allegations of Brazilian apartheid
An editor has nominated Allegations of Brazilian apartheid, an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not"). Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ). You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. Jayden54Bot 18:59, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

A tag has been placed on Allegations of Saudi apartheid, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing no content to the reader. Please note that external links, "See also" section, book reference, category tag, template tag, interwiki link, rephrasing of the title, or an attempt to contact the subject of the article don't count as content. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. If you plan to expand the article, you can request that administrators wait a while for you to add contextual material. To do this, affix the template   to the page and state your intention on the article's talk page. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. -- Casmith_789 (talk) 18:33, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Desmond Tutu at Israeli Apartheid
Your edits are increasingly POV and disruptive. Please attempt to write and edit the article in neutral fashion. Thanks.Kritt 07:15, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Edit Warring
In the last 24 hours, you seem to have reverted Is there some misunderstanding about WP:3RR? 3RR applies to partial reverts, and applies to the whole page, not just reversions of the same material. Will you please stop editing so contentiously? If you want to make a lot of changes to the page, you should do the noncontentious material first, and then discuss the matters that people contest. Mackan79 17:34, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 15:06, 28 March 2007 (Originally removed Carter section)
 * Revert 0: 15:10, 28 March 2007 (Reversion to delete Jimmy Carter again 25 hours ago.)
 * Revert 1: 16:07, 28 March 2007 (Deleted Carter and other section again)
 * Revert 2: 17:07, 28 March 2007 (Self titled revert and deletion of large section)
 * Revert 3: 19:21, 28 March 2007 (Reverted entire lead)
 * Revert 4: 15:26, 29 March 2007 (Removed "They who reject" paragraph, just having been inserted)
 * Revert 5: 15:37, 29 March 2007 (Removed "They who reject" paragraph)
 * Revert 6: 15:51, 29 March 2007] (Removed "They who reject" paragraph)


 * Comment left for you on Talk:Allegations of Israeli apartheid. Mackan79 18:46, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Following moved from Talk:Allegations of Israeli apartheid.Mackan79 19:54, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Urthogie, I disagree with this revert, which is about your 4th violation of WP:3RR today. Will you please revert yourself and discuss it on the talk page? Mackan79 18:44, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
 * No, that's not a revert. It's the first time I removed that uncited statement in the lead, meant to build consensus, not edit war.--Urthogie 18:51, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I am content to let Urthogie have the ball for a while, though I'm not sure if the article is going to need more work when he's done than it did when he started.... -- Kendrick7talk 18:57, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I've been fine as well; I think he's rather abusing that, though, when he continues to add contentious material to the lead after multiple people change it. As long as he is moving material around and trying to improve things, I won't bother him.Mackan79 19:07, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Reverting people over and over is not a good way to build concensus; please understand this. Have you read WP:Revert? People tend to find reverting offensive. I also just warned you that partial reverts and reverts of different material qualify, after which you reverted two or three more times without responding. I assure you that if someone adds material and you delete it, that counts as a "change to an article that partially or completely goes back to any older version of an article" the first time you do it. In any case, I'm giving you a second chance here to stop and revert yourself. Can you please do so? As I said to Kendrick, if you want to keep moving stuff around the article, that's fine by me. Mackan79 19:07, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Just so you know, Urthogie, the problem with your version of the lead is that it now changes it from a statement of the proponents and then the opponents to trying to make it a statement of the theory, and then a statement of how it is rejected by most scholars as propaganda. This does not abide by any sort of NPOV. You remarked earlier about how people were trying to insert material into the lead with subtle biases, so clearly you must see this. Either way, this is why I am asking that you revert yourself and discuss the matter here before trying to insert it again over others' objections. Mackan79 19:18, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
 * How is it biased to remove an unsupported sentence that supports my views?? The fact is that I've been a mainly positive force on this article even if I am an asshole and I will take all of you into account, because if I don't I'll get blocked for 3RR... The statement about the journalists and academics rejecting it is supported by a book which doesn't take their POV.  How could you asser that this is POV?  It is a verified claim.--Urthogie 19:26, 29 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Urthogie, when you keep reverting like this, you are forcing a culture of edit warring, or forcing others to report you when you do so. I don't want to edit war, so my only option is to report you when you do so, unless we're simply going to let you write the article however you want. Incidentally, I am only asking you to abide by WP policy here, which is extremely clear, and which does not have an "I'm an asshole" exception.  Can you please do so?  If you don't do it now, I have no idea why I should expect you to do it in the future.  I am showing you extreme patience exactly because you're actually making an effort to improve the article, but you're also playing dumb about not knowing the rules, and about a lot of the arguments that are being presented.


 * Regarding your argument, you have cherry picked one statement here and placed it at the top of the second paragraph of the lead. When you do that, there are a lot considerations, not simly whether the statement is from a reliable or neutral source.  What we had before was 1. Exposition, 2. Proponents, 3. Opponents.  What you have changed this to is 1. Exposition, 2. Rejection by scholars.  Please make some attempt to acknowledge the issues of neutrality here.  Beyond that, this is my last request for you to revert yourself. Mackan79 19:48, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Yeah you're right, I still don't care. You're lucky, though; I ended up blocked twice for about a quarter of what you've pulled in the last 24 hours. Such is life... Mackan79 20:26, 29 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Urthogie, I appreciate the dialogue, but the amnesty is over. Please revert yourself, as you've just violated 3RR again.  Thanks,  Mackan79 17:51, 3 April 2007 (UTC)


 * You seem not to understand the way 3RR works. It forces you to attempt dialogue.  It forces you to make choices about what you revert.  Rigth now, you seem to think you can simply revert anything however you want.  This makes it quite stressful for others to edit with you.


 * As G-Dett said, I don't think you should feel embattled. You're actually being given a whole lot of leeway that I've never seen anyone else given.  If people aren't acknowleding your points, it might have to do with your "I'll do what I want" style of editing.  I respect the fact that you're willing to stick your neck out and make suggestions, and I think many of them are good; I'm simply tired of the constant reversions, which isn't how concensus building works on wikipedia.  I hope you'll reconsider this; otherwise I'm filing the report unless you revert yourself.  Mackan79 18:08, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

FYI, the 3RR report has been made here. Mackan79 18:44, 3 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I am afraid you still don't appreciate the way concensus building is supposed to work here, which is not through reverting back and forth, but actually building concensus on the talk page. You've called my bluff twice now, and only upon my filing the report do you offer a compromise.  If you'd like to offer a better promise to be much more careful about your reverting, I might withdraw the report, but I'm not promising.  Offering a compromise at this point doesn't really cut it.  Otherwise, the rules say that you simply wait 24 hours and come back, which isn't supposed to be that big a problem, and which you seem to have been prepared for or you wouldn't have pushed things this long.  Mackan79 19:41, 3 April 2007 (UTC)


 * From one non-spell-checker to another. Cheers, Mackan79 22:37, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Iranian women
I remember that you did good work on that article. Keep an eye on it if you will, as it is facing blind reverts as of late. Thanks. The Behnam 19:14, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

recommendation
Given your interests, I recommend Terrence Deacon's The Symbolic Species. It is at time challenging, but you seem to be a serious reader. It provides a far, far, more sophisticated use of evolutionary theory than Pinker. And while it is about a narrower topic (the evolution of language) you can infer from it an approach to culture and biology in general. Slrubenstein  |  Talk 11:45, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Underground hip hopâ
You're reverting the article to a version made up almost entirely of one long quotation, poorly formatted. That is not giving sources. By all means add a request for sources, but don't replace a genuine article with a quotation. --Mel Etitis ( Talk ) 14:24, 13 April 2007 (UTC)


 * You don't seem to understand what is meant by giving a source; it isn't deleting the material there and replacing it with a quotation. Nor is the uncivil response "do it yourself" aceptable. --Mel Etitis ( Talk ) 14:33, 13 April 2007 (UTC)


 * In that case the article probably shouldn't exist. I don't see that replacing it with a quotation from another Website helps. --Mel Etitis  ( Talk ) 17:24, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I'll look at it
I was confused -- 3380 was an update by the Secretary General regarding the ratification of the crime of apartheid resolution; that had actually been defined back in 1973 -- this was now 1975. I'll look at Gator's edits. On the whole, I've long supported moving all most of the quote-farm like sections towards the bottom of the page anyway. For a long time, the first person this article mentioned as using the term was David Duke and I was really bothered by that.... -- Kendrick7talk 20:43, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Not really, the book has its own article; in fact, a few subarticles too. Giving the reader more that a few sentences lends itself to a WP:POVFORK. -- Kendrick7talk 20:50, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I wish there was another source for the assertion anyway. For starters, Pollak has the date wrong -- the speech he is talking about was on October 1st, not in Novemeber. Since he got that fact wrong, the whole claim, which I can't confirm elsewhere, is dubious. The Zionism resolution wasn't passed until October 17th, so it's not really relevant to the article. -- Kendrick7talk 21:46, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Nevermind, I looked again at this mirror of the article; it's not clear where we are getting "November" from. I'll just remove the month, though I'm fairly certain he's talking about the Oct. 1st speech. -- Kendrick7talk 21:50, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

help me
On Talk:Ancient_Egypt_and_race there is a disagreement over whether a certain paragraph is Original Research. Urthogie 19:37, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
 * What do you need to know then? Greeves (talk â¢ contribs â¢ reviews) 22:08, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
 * You should discuss out all options on the talk page. In order for a paragraph not to be original research, citations should be present, especially on living persons articles.  Real96  22:19, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks
Mighty kind of you to say so. -- Kendrick7talk 21:19, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Re arabs in israeli society
"Secondly, to claim that either Arab racism against Jews or Jewish racism against Arabs has the same pathology as European or American racism is also a falsehood-- the hatred and false stereotypes stem from a feeling of victimhood on both sides, not from theories of racial superiority." Very true, and well said. But stereotypes, hatred, and so on aren't really the animating subject for the apartheid meme. Systemic oppression and domination are. I stick by "Jewish-only roads," because that is for all intents and purposes exactly what they are: they are built by tax dollars in response to organized political pressure from Jewish supremacists, whose goal is to expand and consolidate Jewish sovereignty over Palestinian land, and the roads in question cannot be used by the Arabs whose land is seized for their construction. Democracies are complicated, and the identification of structural evils within them doesn't amount to demonization of a culture at large. We have "voter fraud" investigations in the United States the sole political purpose of which is to disenfranchise blacks and minorities, a contemporary version of the Jim-Crow-era disenfranchisement laws I alluded to; to identify these as the structural evil they are does not amount to a pathologizing of the American people, or even of the Republican party.

For what it's worth, however, I think the "Israeli apartheid" meme does more harm than good. My take on it is roughly that of Adam and Moodley. It is a very blunt rhetorical weapon, used by those who are frustrated that their interlocutors refuse to see the occupation as a unique structural evil in its own right. As Adam and Moodley point out, it is chiefly useful to propagandists on both sides. But that doesn't mean those who employ it are propagandists. My POV-investment in this article â we all have one, if we are candid â is that I object to the demonization of critics of Israeli policies. Those who employ the apartheid analogy honestly wish to call attention to systemic domination, but for many it has the effect of pathologizing Israelis and Israeli culture at large. I see its use as regrettable, but it's hardly the most regrettable thing about the broader discussion of Israel-Palestine.--G-Dett 02:17, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
 * "In the end the only criticism that "Jewish only roads" amounts to is the fact that Jews are the only people going from one far-right settlement to another." This isn't how it looks from the perspective of Palestinians, and those who have spent time within their communities in the West Bank (as journalists, activists, NGO workers, friends and family, whatever).  From that vantage, you're sitting at checkpoints for hours while Israeli Jews fly past on Jewish-only roads.  Then those journalists and activists and so on go home and write about Israeli apartheid, because that's what they saw.  Remember, this conversation began as an explanation for what animates the apartheid metaphor in people's minds.  Regardless of how laws and policies are worded on paper, what people see in the West Bank is Jewish-only roads.


 * The settlements don't exist because of terrorism, but of course you're right that terrorism fuels a rightward slide in the average Israeli. Naturally.  The converse, which you overlook, is also true.  Support for Hamas on the eve of the second intifada was around 7%.


 * Peace won't come when Palestinians elect "the right people." This is a purely rhetorical statement with nothing to recommend it descriptively or prescriptively.  Palestinian elections are not taken seriously by the U.S. or Israel as an expression of the will of the Palestinian people, for one thing, but more importantly, the idea that an extremely asymmetrical war can be brought to a close through electoral decisions made by the weaker and occupied side is absurd.  Israel and the U.S. hold the cards, and despite all the ridiculous rhetoric, it is Palestinians who are fighting an existential war (Israel will exist in ten years, and in 100 hundred years, but the same cannot be said with certainty of Palestine).  Peace will come when the moral, diplomatic, political and economic costs of the occupation are too much for Israel to bear.  When this happens is in large part a function of what happens in America, both in terms of foreign policy and political discourse.--G-Dett 15:09, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your latest comment, Urthogie. I hope you'll take it the right way when I say that I think we may have reached the ceiling of what we are each likely to learn from this particular round of dialogue.   I am grateful for the exchange, and some of the things you have said will stay with me and be the source of further reflections.  I am especially intrigued by what you say about Arab-Israelis not accepting Israel.  I only know a few Arab-Israelis, but I know a good many Palestinians in the West Bank, Gaza, and Lebanon.  In my experience they, like everybody else in the world, do not have  a single monolithic world-view but rather a mosaic of contradictory and overlapping rhetorics.  What they think or say about Israel depends on who's asking, how they ask and what's going on in the news that day.  Language and rhetoric are the last weapons of the powerless.  Those interested in diplomacy, either at the individual or state level, might take care to think about how they frame things when feeling out willingness for compromise on the part of a brutalized people.  Thanks again, --G-Dett 16:11, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

rename proposal
Creation of a new article is a big job and I just don't seem to want to get my head around it right now. Apart from which, you seem to be the only person who responded to my idea.

Look, I would like to try and do something eventually - I can see, from your POV, that a heading like "allegations of Israeli apartheid" is something akin to "have you stopped beating your wife yet?", but it's not exactly a hot priority for me. There are plenty of other, less demanding things to do on Wiki to keep me busy right now, hopefully I will eventually get around to thinking about the shape of an alternative article, but I really can't say when. Gatoclass 12:13, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Well I'm hardly an expert on this subject. But if you want a few ideas off the top of my head, I guess the article would have to cover things like (in no particular order):

Israeli property law in the territories, and the discriminatory practices in it;

Housing demolitions, both security and other;

Water distribution;

Settler violence;

Collective punishment, targeted killings etc;

Security barrier;

Status of Arabs in Jerusalem;

Roadblocks and checkpoints;

Separate roads;

Detention and torture;

And somewhere of course, the apartheid analogy. Which I assume would be a reasonably short list of credible people who have used the analogy, followed by some criticism of its use - somewhere in the article anyhow. Gatoclass 14:32, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

(UTC) Human rights in the West Bank:

Settlements Violence Public services Water Etc. Property law West Bank barrier Military activity Roadblocks and checkpoints Detention and torture House demolitions Targeted assassinations Views on the settlements Support Opposition (including apartheid allegations) Mixed International law How's that look? By the way, Status of Arabs in Jerusalem is already covered under Human rights in Israel and Arab citizens of Israel. Although a Human rights in Jerusalem article may be worth considering.--Urthogie 15:12, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Comment - "Human Rights in the West Bank" sounds a bit narrow. A lot of the above topics also affect the Gazans.

Also, I don't want the discussion to be veering off into the "human rights" of those poor, hard done by Israeli settlers. That's why I suggested putting "Palestinians" in the title in the first place.

As for your suggested format, I don't like the idea of having settlements right on top. Nor do I much like your idea of "views on the settlements". Sounds to me like you want to turn this into some sort of apologia for their existence. I think that would probably be more appropriate to the "Israeli settlements" page.

Also, it seemed to me when I first thought of this that property law and its implementation should probably be getting top billing role on this page, since it is to my way of thinking a foundation stone of Palestinian dispossession and oppression. I mean, if the Palestinians had the same property rights as Jews, we probably wouldn't be having this discussion. Gatoclass 15:37, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

''It's original research to mix the unoccupied Gazans with the occupied folks in the West Bank. That would serve only to confuse people who don't know about the regions to begin with (this defines most of our readers).''

Not at all. The settlements in Gaza were uprooted, but the occupation didn't go anywhere. In fact, Gazans are in the worst situation of all, basically they are in the largest open air concentration camp in the world, and subject to the same targeted assassinations, detetion and torture, restrictions on movement, water shortages and so on. ''I think the article would come to represent the facts. There is no way to discuss the region without discussing the settlers as well. If the facts don't make the settlers look good (I'm pretty sure this is the case), then there is no reason to worry about discussing their human rights, especially in conjunction with Palestinians.''

Well certainly one must discuss the settlers. I just don't want to see them usurping half the article. And I really see no place for "views of the settlements" in an article about Palestinian human rights. A description of the settlements, okay. A passing reference to their rationale for being there, perhaps. But as I said, it's a discussion better suited to the "Israeli settlements" page, and I think a link to that page would make more sense. ''What alternative would you suggest to "Views on the settlements"? Surely not "Apartheid: is it the case?". We want a more broad discussion of the issues, not just to have an apartheid yes/no section. So what would you suggest as a better name for the section where people would express your views on how people are treated?''

Well, my suggestion for the apartheid section would probably be "The Apartheid Analogy". Perhaps you could follow that with a section entitled "justifications for the discriminatory practices" or something. Gatoclass 16:22, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

__________

Hmmmm, it's starting to look a little better now.

"Israeli policy in the occupied territories" is an angle I hadn't thought of. I suppose it might make a reasonable alternative title.

But I don't think you should be canvassing just my views. As I said, I'm hardly an expert on this subject, and I'm running out of ideas already. Other people might have entirely different ideas (assuming they are interested in the topic at all).

As for Gaza - just have a separate section on it I guess, as a "special case". Gatoclass 16:39, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

What you did
Was not fair. I was away for personal reasons and came back to find the article deleted. If you want to delete the article, put it up for deletion review. Do NOT sneakily and unilaterally delete things that offend you by replacing them with disambig pages. Thanks. Tiamut 16:16, 27 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Please continue this discussion on my tale for continuity. Thanks. Tiamut 16:23, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

AoIa
Hi Urthogie -- Do you have any interest in creating the new article? What we need basically is a lead, after which we have plenty of material in AoIa and here. If it turns out the article adequately covers the debate, I can pledge that I'll support deletion of the original. I think you saw I didn't vote in the last AfD, which was because I do share some of your concerns. Either way, I'm not sure it's fair to "rename" the article to something that is substantively much different from what we have after all the previous AfD's. If you're willing to show some delicacy here, I also think it's much likelier to keep people reasonably ok with whatever happens. Mackan79 22:23, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I have no idea, and I actually doubt I'll be able to respond much more tonight. My thought was we'd just create it incrementally like anything else.  The main discussion I'm envisioning is the one regarding equal rights.  My starting point here is the assumption that this article would be seen as a good thing even if the Apartheid article stays, though, by clarifying that the Apartheid article is only about that debate, and not Wikipedia's explanation of the conditions. I'm not sure if you differ on that.  Anyway, that's basically what I'm thinking.  Mackan79 22:38, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Egypt and race mediation
If you want an outside opinion I'd be more than happy to provide that. The best way to find a totally uninvolved editor's opinion is a third opinion request. I can file one of these for you but the depth and huge history of the conflict, the detail of the article and the more subtle personal history I would think requires a more in depth dispute resolution process. At this point you should probably make an official request for medation. If you choose to go this route I will help file that as well but you need to have a very clear idea of what's wrong and what might be done to fix it. This route is not a place to take content disputes, only for a helping hand in resolving your disputes with other editors that you feel are damaging. It's a way to amend behavior, not rule on content. If that too fails or any party refuses to join a mediation then you can take it to the last step which is filing a complaint with the Arbitration Committee. This is a last resort and any ruling from them can result in restriction of editing privileges and even a ban. If you have real concerns about sockpuppets (and some proof) you can take this to a admin as a separate issue and that admin can then request a check user. I know several admins that are both fair and helpful and I can recommend them to you if you wish. You can also make a blanket request here.

Keep in mind that there are no innocent parties left on that article, you and most of the other involved editors are guilty of breaking at least some rules. I share your POV concerns and some of your concerns about the other editors but I can't condone your previous edit warring and I won't try to defend it in an arbitration. I'm not sure what the solution is and I just don't have the time right now to get involved in the article itself as I'd like to. Maybe later in the week or this weekend. Like I said I share alot of your concerns and I will be more than happy to help out any editor that needs it so don't be afraid to hit me up again on my talk page. NeoFreak 17:20, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Reply
No one called you a "vandal" or a "eurocentrist", if you can quote where I actually labeled you as such, I'd love it.. I just don't appreciate accusations though, maybe you should take your own advice about the good faith thing before running off to Neofreak and slandering my name.. Thank you..Taharqa 22:31, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
 * note: this user actually has called me both. see Talk:ancient Egypt and race and talk archives for a record.--Urthogie 23:10, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

List
So I don't know how much energy I have to work on this, but one way would be to put the allegations section in your or my user space, where we could work on it freely, and try to place the various bits in context. It might work or it might not, but it would be one way to try. If we got something decent, then, we could propose the changes. This would presumably cut out some of the less notable names, but hopefully in a way that didn't toss out too much. Thoughts? Mackan79 02:07, 3 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure at this point who should be removed; one paragraph, for instance, could be on what some professors have said as opposed to various statesmen. I'm more agreeing with you that we should have a discussion here rather than a list.  I think that will take a little more effort, though, which is why I suggested doing it in userspace, which also allows us to make stupid suggestions and then fix them.  Just an idea. Mackan79 15:19, 3 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I was thinking of pasting the entire section into userspace. That would mean, for instance, to User:Urthogie/AoIa.  My first question would be how we might organize a discussion then, how we're going to split the people up.  First thought is by type of people.  I'm not totally sure what you mean by raising the issue in talk, if we're talking about the same thing here.  Anyway, I'll have to continue the discussion a bit later.  Cheers,  Mackan79 15:28, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Request for Mediation
This message delivered: 16:16, 4 May 2007 (UTC).

Reverting
Strictly speaking, Taharqa reverted Dynastic Race Theory and Ancient Egypt and race before she and I came to an understanding. Thanatosimii 04:23, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

alternative rap
how was that vandalism? the rodrick section was terribly POV and negative and even the allmusic definition is wrong. all i'm trying to do is what everyone was already saying on the talk page.

it's not your page, stop trying to run it. thanks âThe preceding unsigned comment was added by Fiftwekid (talk â¢ contribs) 03:01, 6 May 2007 (UTC).
 * fine. even if the views are stated neutrally, the general feel of the views is not. you don't see anybody describing alt. hiphop in neutral or positive ways, it's only negative rodrick tripe. add more quotes that are neutral descriptions. also, the amg definition is wrong in saying more rock people listen to alt hiphop than rap people. that's an opinion, and an ill-informed one at that. if you're going to make every article an npov soapbox of bad opinions, at least find and add some good ones. thanks Fiftwekid 03:05, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
 * so by the same token, you need a source to say "mos def hates being called alternative hip hop." you're criticizing a placement in a category. well, what source is there that would confirm this? mos def is not a gangsta rapper, he is only somewhat afrocentric, he is muslim (and therefore SQUARELY out of the mainstream), and he alternates between rock and rap albums. he is as alternative as alternative gets, but you apparently know that he isn't, so tell me he isn't and cite it. if you can't, i'm putting it back in (you had no objection to the other artists). Fiftwekid 05:21, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
 * you're right and all i did was put mos def in the alternative category. what do you see wrong with that? Fiftwekid 20:57, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Re:Sphinx
You can add it back with that source, then. &mdash; á®á  |  (Yom)  |  Talk  â¢ contribs â¢ Ethiopia 04:32, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

You have been blocked
You have been blocked from editing for in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for violating the three-revert rule. In the future, please solve editing disputes through discussion rather than edit warring. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text below. Heimstern LÃ¤ufer (talk) 05:37, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Please note also my comments at WP:AN3RR. Heimstern LÃ¤ufer (talk) 05:39, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Requests for mediation/Ancient Egypt and race
Hello Urthogie,

I am writing to you because, as a party to this case, your input is required before mediation can begin, to do with an offer by an experienced non-Committee member to mediate. Please see the Parties' agreement to Eagle 101's offer section and provide your input, so that this case can progress. Voting will remain open for seven days, and further elaboration is provided at that link.


 * For the Mediation Committee,  Daniel  06:28, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Go here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_mediation/Ancient_Egypt_and_race/mediationTaharqa 22:14, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Template
Urthogie -- I don't know how much you follow the policy pages, but the phrase people use is "sterile reverting," which is pretty heavily discouraged. If you want to discuss the red links we can; I'll admit I have a very hard time seeing a legitimate reason to dirty up pages like that, but reverting certainly won't improve anything. Mackan79 15:59, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
 * "Generally, red links are supposed to be on templates if applicable." Can you point me to that? I've seen it said that red links in articles are fine, where the article is in planning.  To put it in a template, of course, is a very different thing, which is 1.) an affirmative statement that this item belongs on the template when it doesn't even exist yet, and 2.) awful-looking.  You're also asserting that these things exist without any sources.  That's three reasons, good enough? Mackan79 16:07, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Can you really say there's no difference between a geographic location and an article on an alleged accusation? I don't think anybody is disputing that those locations exist or that there should be articles on them.  If somebody did, there would be an issue.  The problem here is two things: a. You're asserting something without sources, and b. You're putting it on a template before you even have the article.  I think any wider audience will tell you that's not the way to go about it.  Mackan79 17:05, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Every one of these articles is extremely contentious, as you know. The whole template is also a ridiculous WP:Point, as you know.  There are endless issues here, but no, I don't think templates should consist of articles on accusatory arguments unless those arguments have been documented in a NPOV article. Mackan79 17:13, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
 * If you want to write an article on economic apartheid or these other issues, be my guest. As that happens, I think the OR of putting it on this template will also become increasingly apparent, though. Mackan79 17:17, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
 * 1. It's ugly, particularly when you're placing this banner at the very top of an article. 2. Your article is on a contentious and disputed issue, and a concept which only Urthogie decided to write an article about.  That's not the kind of thing that should be on a template, which is to help direct people to articles.  3. Even if the article existed, I would likely contest its inclusion on the banner as OR, though I can't tell since the article doesn't exist.  4.  I believe you argued the reason we wouldn't have a banner on "Allegations of Fascism" is because you'd first need the articles, or somebody else did.  Now you're saying we can create a banner based on speculation that we'll create them.  I don't think that's the way to do it.  Beyond that, we should probably take this to the template talk page... Mackan79 17:25, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Urthogie -- why don't you just stub out those articles? You said you would months ago, IIRC. -- Kendrick7talk 02:46, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

RE:
Oops. I only saw the diff in the top of the window. Sorry, I'll revert my changes. ~ Î ÎG Ð¸Ïs ÎÎ  Î¹Ð¼ÏÐ  &#8776; &#8730;&#8734;  19:45, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Appearance of the ancient Egyptians
Hey, could you incorporate my citation on the comparison of ancient Egyptians' portrayal of themselves and Puntites that I put on the talk page of race and ancient Egypt (Population history of ancient Egypt)? I don't know where exactly it would fit on the new page, since I don't see an artwork section, but it's definitely relevant. Thanks. &mdash; á®á  |  (Yom)  |  Talk  â¢ contribs â¢ Ethiopia 22:33, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Response
since you're disputing the source, why aren't you willing to seek a third opinion? Edit: Nevermind, didn't know how to do it, but I followed the instructions and did it, but I still don't see why the burden is on me when no rules are broken and the source is provided.- Taharqa

article edits
Hi. Just curious, why are you supporting naming an article "Segregation in the West Bank"? Isn't "segregation" also a loaded word? Maybe they would have come up with that word on tyheir own, but why suggest it? I suggest using a more neutral word,. auch as "practices", "regulations", "interactions" etc. let me know what you think of that. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 16:27, 19 July 2007 (UTC)


 * sounds good. i guess you are a pragmatist. On the other hand, funny, but I always thought you fell quite specifically under "idealist". :-) But they are both good. However, this is just my small suggestion that i personally lean away from segregation. i understand if it results from a compromise, but I want just to put that suggestion on the table. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 16:47, 19 July 2007 (UTC)


 * all of your comments at the apartheid article a while back, seemed extremely energetic and articulate to me, even when i disagreed. They seemed to me to be the work of someone with a fair amount of idealism. --Steve, Sm8900 16:57, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

AfD
Are you willing to move the extended discussion to the talk page? I believe that's the more appropriate place, while it's turning the AfD itself into somewhat of a garbled mess... Mackan79 15:25, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
 * That's fine, I was only trying to move the extended "Proposal" section into talk, since it's making unclear where to comment and what is what. If I leave your comment and note that he disputes it on the talk page, is that ok? Mackan79 15:30, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, hrm. That's also not really fair to him.  Could I reword the notice that his contributions have been contested?  Otherwise I'll probably just leave it. Mackan79 15:36, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Please comment
This is a message for all regulars at the “apartheid” AfD series. I believe there may have been a breakthrough. Please share your thoughts here. Thanks. --Targeman 02:59, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:Allegations of apartheid
Template:Allegations of apartheid has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. Bleh999 05:36, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

The "Wikipedia note" was a compromise reached after the July 10 TfD to take care of concerns about undue weight, an NPOV problem. Please join the discussion on the talk page about the draft to delineate any problems you have with the notice, and why the neutrality of the template is not compromised by its absence. Cheers, Grace notes T § 23:54, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't know which notice we're talking about. Do you have problems with 1. the notice about allegations of apartheid in nations other than those which have allegation of apartheid articles, or 2. the notice about centralized discussion? Grace notes T § 00:12, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Overbold
It might be not the right kind of articles to apply this policy; my bad. On the other hand, if nothing is made about them, they will remain in the pitiful state they're in now while we stone our heads against a wall. I suppose that's not what you want, as you wouldn't call the treatment of women in Afghanistan or Saudi Arabia slender, would you? --Victor falk 19:18, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

NPOV and disruption
Please cease violating our neutral point of view policy and deliberately causing disruption in relation to Segregation in Northern Ireland. These are blockable offences, and you are liable to find yourself being blocked if you continue. -- ChrisO 19:58, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Urthogie, Why are you removing sourced material and refences from this article, stop edit warring and discuss changes in the article talk page.--padraig 20:02, 22 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Well the edit dif in the article shows otherwise.--padraig 20:06, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

RFAR
You have been named as a party in an RFAR at Requests for arbitration. --Ideogram 06:12, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Visual Kei
I am contacting a few people in the WikiProject Music genres project to please come and give a Neutral point of view on if we should consider Visual Kei a "genre". There is currently an edit war that has been going on since January of 2007 - we really some outside opinions. I have put some information on the WP Music Genres talk page, if you have time to look. Thanks either way. Denaar 06:45, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

population History of Ancient Egypt
Greetings..I was just looking over the "Population History Of Ancient Egypt" and I see you have done many edits to that article in the past...well it appears that that another person named Taharqa has been adding and editing to that article as well. Anyways, It's an extremely Afrocentricly distorted article. Most of his sources come from two afrocentrics (neither of whom are geneticists) Diop and keita.

Anyways I'm rather new to wikipedia so I would like your help. No Egyptian Museum take Afrocentrism seriously and if Wikipedia (which has been getting bashed all over the news recently) is to be a quality reference this article cannot stay as it is.

THANKS .--Evil Greek

Will you please leave Urthogie alone, he has been doing just fine and an experienced user such as himself knows not to throw blanket terms like "afrocentric" around at random. It is the same (the content) as it was when he was there and we've already came to an agreement.. You're obviously searching for sometype of POV, and unfortunately I doubt Urthogie is interested in bickering over your POV..Taharqa 21:11, 1 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Taharqa is correct. I am not interested in editing this series of articles, as I find it too stressful.  Instead of attacking Afrocentrism as a whole, try to cite specific disagreements you may have with the article or its editors and work through mediation or some other means to solve them.--Urthogie 15:07, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Requests for arbitration/Allegations of apartheid
Hello,

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened: Requests for arbitration/Allegations of apartheid. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Requests for arbitration/Allegations of apartheid/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Requests for arbitration/Allegations of apartheid/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Newyorkbrad 18:03, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:Allegations of apartheid
Template:Allegations of apartheid has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. — &mdash;Ashley Y 04:29, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Mali and the ancients
Hi, Urthogie. Nice to meet u. Yeah me and T are good homies. We try to help each other out as much as possible on our mutual articles of interest. Feel free to holla at me anytime. T might have told u i got the hook up on JSTOR articles, so if u run into any dead ends on research get at me. i can email u the whole JSTOR article in PDF format. As far Mali, I think we should keep it in the medieval section. The reason being that the Mali Empire (the state and not neccesarily the civiliation) wasn't formed into well into the middle ages. I do understand the Mandinka/Malinke/Mande civilization goes back well into ancient time tho. the discoveries at Jenne are truly amazing. Thnx for getting at me and checking out the page. Any friend of Tarharqa is a friend of mine. Holla.Scott Free 15:13, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

hey
Good to hear from you. You seem to be on a roll to me and that looks like some very good reading. Blues People sort of got my attention and I might go ahead and snatch that up. All of them have good reviews. I'd probably also recommend for a lighter read, the following:


 * Matt Schaffer. Bound to Africa: the Mandinka Legacy in the New World, History in Africa - Volume 32, 2005


 * John Henrik Clarke. The Origin And Growth Of Afro-American Literature,” Black Voices (1968)

Hope you're doing good and thanx for reaching out..Taharqa 02:17, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Correction; actually I didn't read it, but it drew my interest. What I get out of that quote however, is that maybe the author is speaking in terms of the amalgam in general. For instance, the vast majority of Irish peoples who came here were NOT indentured servants. As stated though, I plan on purchasing this book.Taharqa 04:34, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Some (certainly not all) Afrocentrists tend to have some ill-feelings towards Jews for some reason, mostly due to what they feel is hypocrisy in trying to downplay their role in the Trans-Atlantic slave trade. I don't agree and therefore, anyone casting criticism onto an entire ethny doesn't deserve the benefit of the doubt unless these sorts of criticisms are justified, which would of course cast doubt on some of their other unverified claims. I only had that bare quote to go by at first. In fact, Jews and Africans fought side by side in antiquity against the Assyrians and defeated them, hence saving Judaism for later generations. See: Henry T. Aubin, The Rescue of Jerusalem - 2nd edition, 2003, Anchor Canada.

Not at all painting the author in the light of Afrocentrism, but he may harbor some of the same sentiments. Actually, in reading his biographical information, I don't get the indication that he lives by any particular ideology and is simply a writer with questionable views and quotes. I couldn't find any of his articles though, I wouldn't mind if you'd link me to one (the one that you were referencing).Taharqa 20:21, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't say that contempt towards Jews in the black community necessarily has to do with that since as I alluded to, it isn't a prevalent phenomenon. The anti-semitism mostly radiates from the so-called intellectual hierarchy, and more generally from the Nation of Islam. Ironically, a lot of it is rooted in the hypocrisy of the word "anti-Semite". Many argue, based on linguistics that Africans were actually the original Semites, particularly since the proto-Semitic language is thought by many linguists to have originated in Ethiopia.

It goes deeper than politics, a lot of it has to do with identity, personal ignorance, and historical reasons.

Sorry I didn't answer your question; I didn't catch it.

My goal is to become a journalist but I also love poetry, fiction and Astronomy. Given that, I also have a fascination with extraterrestrial life and science fiction. I used to write a lot, but sort of calmed down a bit. Got published in a poetry book a while back. But all in all, I plan on writing for some type of publisher dealing with pre-colonial African topics (not into politics) as a journalist for either a magazine, notable website, local paper, or whatever other outlet..Taharqa 04:31, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

It's been a while, but I got swamped with messages and just noticed yours, lol.. Like Scott points out below, Mali is probably the most influential empires in medieval west africa and the epic of sundiata is one of my favorites. The most widely regarged translation is by D.T. Niane. Your teacher seems pretty smart and objective. Yep, he basically sums up my entire position on that.Taharqa 22:03, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Requests for arbitration/Allegations of apartheid
The Arbitration Committee has adopted a motion in the above arbitration case, providing: "As the Committee has been unable to determine which actions in this matter, if any, were undertaken in bad faith, and as the community appears to be satisfactorily dealing with the underlying content dispute, the case is dismissed with no further action being taken." This notice is given by a Clerk on behalf of the Arbitration Committee. Newyorkbrad 19:12, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Anarchy
I like the NPOV of Anarchy, very nice work.--Keer lls ton 12:47, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Reply
Hey Urthogie, how are you? Thanx for reaching out and showing me whatever it is you were trying to show me. Unfortunately, the link doesn't work, but I'm still interested in what it's about.

As far as that article. Man, trust me when I tell you this. I had no control over that and I was basically the only one opposed. I believe that I even disagreed with Luka on this. The person who ultimately changed it from your title, was Zerida, whom I got blocked several times for edit warring against. I can't do that anymore and reason doesn't seem to work. After that, an admin changed it to what it is now after gaining consensus from others (not me). Another admin, Dab is pushing to have it changed again! That article is ridiculous Urthogie, and if you notice, I have been active on it, but only to repel vandalism and extra distortion. We pretty much have a consensus version now that is more neutral than it ever has been, but I understand your concern. Trust me when I say I tried.Taharqa (talk) 02:21, 5 December 2007 (UTC)