Talk:Tutankhamun/Archive 1

Top

FWIW, here are the usual Google results, for pages in English:

• Tutankhamun - 77,600
• Tutankhamen - 73,900
• Tutankhamon - 11,000

So either the "un" or "en" form would be OK - we seem to have gone for the "un" form, which most (but not all) Egyptologists now use.

It should be noted that "Amun" (i.e., the deity system of Amun) is usually spelled Amun to differentiate from Amen (i.e., the Christian "ending" of a prayer). By this logic, Amun is thus the "correct" ending. Master Thief Garrett 02:53, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

---

Please, please... no urban myths saying that Tutankhamon's tomb was discovered untact. That's just false. Kindly read Howard Carter.

(Sorry for the rant...)

Fab 21:42, 5 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Well, it was certainly orders more intact than any other New Kingdom tomb ever found! And of course the sepulchre was still sealed from the original burial, so in that sense it was "intact". Noel (talk) 00:43, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

It was really only intact because the nested sarcophagi were too big to carry! If it hadn't been so large they would have broken into it too... Master Thief Garrett 02:53, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

---

How much of the reversing of the Amarna revolution was the 18-year-old Tut's own work, and how much of is it the work of his advisors, probably most notably Ay? RickK 00:25, 9 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Well, that's the thing! While it was patriotic and all for the pharaoh to personally ride out and deal with the matter, he would order his commanders around to do the actual "dirty work". And where did he get such ideas from? The advisors! So the deeds of either cannot be really proven, since, as a rule, it is always the pharaoh who gets all the credit in inscriptions etc. Master Thief Garrett 02:53, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Retouched image

Should my retouched version (Image:Tutankhamun-mask-retouched.jpg) of the current image be used instead? -- Fredrik | talk 17:06, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I like the original better, although you get to see more detail in the revised version. Maybe another version that is a little bit less lighted? - Bevo 18:52, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Contradiction

"Tutankhamun ruled Egypt for eight to ten years and examinations of his mummy suggest that he was seventeen or eighteen years old when he died"

"Tutankhamun died at about the age of 19, of unknown causes"

These two appear to contradict each other, does anyone know which is more accurate?--Clawed 01:09, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Good catch, and good question!

Clayon, Chronicle of the Pharaohs (pp. 130) says "death at about 17". Pharaohs of the Sun says (pp. 177) "may have been older at death than is usually supposed, perhaps dying in his mid-twenties", with a citation there to Wente and Harris After Tut'Ankhamun: Research and Excavation in the Royal Necropolis at Thebes (pp. 10-11, 13-16) (which I have, but don't have the energy to go check). Reeves, Complete Tutankhamun (pp. 24) says "perhaps as young as 16 or 17", and Brier, Murder of Tutankhamun (pp. 81) says "from a careful examination of his mummy, we know he was about nineteen at the time of his death". So take your pick! I will modify the article to say something like "no consensus among Egyptologists as to his age when he died; estimates range from 16 to his mid-twenties". Noel (talk) 18:12, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Headline: Scan may solve mystery of King Tut

A team of researchers briefly removed King Tutankhamun's mummy from its tomb on Tuesday(/01/2005 and lay bare his bones for a CT scan that could solve an enduring mystery: was it murder or natural causes that killed Egypt's boy pharaoh 3 000 years ago?

Tutankhamun's toes and fingers and an eerie outline of his face could be seen as the mummy, resting in a box to protect it, was placed inside the machine in a specially equipped van, parked near his underground tomb in the famed Valley of the Kings.

The 1 700 images taken during the 15-minute CT scan could answer many of the mysteries that shroud King Tutankhamun's life and death - including his royal lineage, his exact age - now estimated at 17 - and the cause of his death. Net-Surfer

The text addded to the page about this includes revealed that Tutankhamun may have been the twelfth ruler of ancient Egypt's eighteenth dynasty, that his ascension to the throne began at age 8, and that he died around 1323 BC. So how the devil did a CAT scan reveal any of this? I mean, the most you'd expect directly from a CAT scan is a more accurate age at death estimate. Yes, that data would be useful (given his reign length) in working out how old he was at accession. However, it would be of no use at all in working out the death date (the reign length is all that is useful there, and a CAT scan doesn't give you anything about that), or what the order of 18th dynasty rulers was (I don't think it is of any use in settling the Smenkhare successor and/or Nefertiti successor question). Unless someone can explain the connection, I'm going to remove these latter two points. Noel (talk) 02:44, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Face of mummy mask

In the previous article for Smenkhkare, it is hypothesized that the famous mask that is used for pictorial images of Tut is really Smenkhkare; should this be mentioned in the Tut article? User:FeanorStar7

Mugwump2 here, and I just wanted to say I appreciate the work on this page. I have always been extremely interested in Egyptology, and will also be looking to put in some articles pertaining to the topic when I become more familiar with how Wikipedia works. Thanks again.

peanut head?

Will someone fix the section on Tutankhamun's description of a peanut-head? This little description betrays a bit of white supremecist tampering of which I have been highly cognizant of since finding that some of the prime links relating to King Tut's facial rendering in national geographic over Google lead directly to white supremecist sites; I know the apologists will cry that they are only nationalists however.

Actually, I inserted that, and I'm far from a white supremacist. :p "Peanuthead" is a term common in the African-American community to describe the elongated (dolichocephalic) heads of black men (evident when they are balding/bald or have their heads shaved) with sagittal ridges, which produce the ovular or sometimes hammer-head shape with a dip in the center. It looks like a peanut, and is a hallmark "racial" trait of many blacks which forensic scientists use in assigning racial identity to human remains. King Tut's dolichocephalism is so pronounced, for years scientists suspected some kind of congenital deformity. Same with maxillary and alveolar prognathism, resulting in a receding chin line, with regard to being used by forensic experts to classify an individual by "race." And King Tut had all these characteristics in spades -- which makes it a virtual certainty, beyond a shadow of any reasonable doubt, that he was a blackman, and highly unlikely that he was "mixed" in any way, shape or form. The brother was most likely chocolate brown (as most of his portraits depict him) or darker, like the Dinka or other Nilotic peoples of North Africa (and elsewhere). deeceevoice 11:36, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

New format for NG 2005 Facial Reconstruction subsect.

Would anyone like to program the images to correspond to this diagram?

http://homepage.mac.com/citizensane/wow.jpg

Thank you.

The Ankh in Tut-ankh-Amun is a determitive.

I have discovered in Egyptian language books that the Ankh means, a sandal strap, a mirror, the human form, and symbol of eternal life. When placed next to the word for image - Tut - this then becomes Image + Mirror, or reflection. So the name should read, Reflection of the Sun (God) and not Living Image of the Sun (God). I am also wondering why new research into this and other ideas about Tut(ankh)Amon are not in circulation in modern Egyptology... Any hints?

-Mike

Funeral mask

I've read before that the funeral mask is now generally thought to be of Smenkhare, and to have been reused for Tutankhamun; apparently Egyptologists recognised this early on, but some people used the image of the mask in exhibitions and books anyway because of the funeral mask's more impressive face. The canopic jar and National Geographic reconstruction do suggest this is plausible, as that face looks quite a bit different from the mask. Does anybody have a reference? Rd232 09:38, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

21/8/05 revert

I reverted Andropolis' changes which broke the existing structure in favour of a worse one, and introduced an essayish style (vs encyclopedic) in the first section, talking about Tutankhamun's significance (plus other stuff of limited relevance). He also removed the Afrocentric controversy section, which had useful discussion about Tutankhamun's appearance (as well as less useful but current on the minor controversy). I also failed to see the relevance of the Ephesus library or Psusennes I photos, especially as the article already has enough photos which are actually relevant. Also, 400px is too big for a picture for some people's screens, so 300px is normally the max used on Wikipedia, unless centering the picture so it takes up the width of the page. Finally, a See Also section is not always helpful, and this one wasn't - all things within it were already linked at appropriate points, and some were not helpful anyway (Linda Robinson is a related topic people should look up?). Rd232 17:02, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

My edit summary "Also artefact is an acceptable alternative spelling - more common than artifact in UK" referred to Andropolis' change artefact -> artifact as "spelling fix". Point being either form is acceptable (in all forms of English), and convention on Wikipedia is to stick with the original spelling used in the article, unless there is a reason to standardise (eg one version more common, or one version is US and its a US topic, etc). Rd232 23:04, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

Since Andropolis has not responded here to address my points I am reverting. I also point out Hatshepsut as a Pharaoh article that is approaching Featured status (Talk:Hatshepsut). Rd232 23:04, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

"I reverted Andropolis' changes which broke the existing structure in favour of a worse one,"

Thus: alteration made on the basis of opinion.

"and introduced an essayish style (vs encyclopedic) in the first section, talking about Tutankhamun's significance (plus other stuff of limited relevance)."

Generally, encyclopedic entries include remarks on significance. This alteration constitutes a molestation of logic.

Perhaps I was unclear in my haste. Clearly I do not object to discussion of his significance - that's what "Tutankhamun in the European imagination" should do - since that's where his significance got blown out of proportion. You can add your material there (and the note in the intro could be improved), but phrases like "Do still more unplundered tombs remain, waiting to be discovered?" are stylistically disapproved of on Wikipedia. If it doesn't provide information to readers, it's often considered a waste of space. And the discussion of Psusennes has no place on this page, it is either for Psusennes I or for a broader Ancient Egypt topic article. Rd232 09:33, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

"He also removed the Afrocentric controversy section, which had useful discussion about Tutankhamun's appearance (as well as less useful but current on the minor controversy). I also failed to see the relevance of the Ephesus library or Psusennes I photos, especially as the article already has enough photos which are actually relevant. Also, 400px is too big for a picture for some people's screens, so 300px is normally the max used on Wikipedia, unless centering the picture so it takes up the width of the page. Finally, a See Also section is not always helpful, and this one wasn't - all things within it were already linked at appropriate points, and some were not helpful anyway (Linda Robinson is a related topic people should look up?). Rd232 17:02, 21 August 2005 (UTC)"

How useful is barely-veiled racial propaganda? The "2005 facial reconstruction" section, if investigated, was clearly tacked on as a deliberate effort to sway the opinions of readers. The NPR link I supplanted it with was more than sufficient.

I don't see any propaganda - I see mention of a minor controversy leading into a useful and NPOV discussion of our knowledge of what the pharaohs looked like. Rd232 09:33, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

400px "looked right," which if of course entirely subjective. As you'll remember, however, many bound encyclopedias include full page illustrations. "Lynda Robinson" was included as an external link in a previous incarnation of the page, and was mentioned as having written popular books on ancient Egypt. Please point out the absurdity in including her if I have missed out.

Lynda Robinson was mentioned in the appropriate place: 'Tutankhamun in popular culture'. There wasn't to my knowledge an external link (i.e. link to outside wikipedia). Rd232 09:33, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

You employ the words "useful" and "helpful" in too general a sense, inferring your own ideals.

"My edit summary "Also artefact is an acceptable alternative spelling - more common than artifact in UK" referred to Andropolis' change artefact -> artifact as "spelling fix". Point being either form is acceptable (in all forms of English), and convention on Wikipedia is to stick with the original spelling used in the article, unless there is a reason to standardise (eg one version more common, or one version is US and its a US topic, etc). Rd232 23:04, 21 August 2005 (UTC)"

Acceptable to Oxford does not mean acceptable to all. Noah Webster, for example, would not have approved. Whatever the case, though, your alteration is entirely preferential. On a side note, by "spelling fixes" I meant the various wrong spellings of Pierre Montet. Not art(ie)facts.

Artefact/Artifact are both acceptable. It's not worth fighting over, which is precisely why the policy is to leave acceptable spellings as they are, and not change them to editors' preferred versions. I'm sure you didn't know this, and I pointed it out. Rd232 09:33, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

"Since Andropolis has not responded here to address my points I am reverting. I also point out Hatshepsut as a Pharaoh article that is approaching Featured status (Talk:Hatshepsut). Rd232 23:04, 21 August 2005 (UT)."

It's fine with me if you prefer to wallow and roll in the comforting confines of convention. I, on the other hand, like adventure -- and without wild charges, without rejections of conformity, Man would still be scratching his nose in a cave.

Do, though, as you will. I leave you to your private war. (Andropolis 07:03, 23 August 2005 (UTC))

I don't think I've been unreasonable (but then I wouldn't). I've also responded on your User talk page. Rd232 09:33, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Smenkhare

"I've read before that the funeral mask is now generally thought to be of Smenkhare, and to have been reused for Tutankhamun; apparently Egyptologists recognised this early on, but some people used the image of the mask in exhibitions and books anyway because of the funeral mask's more impressive face. The canopic jar and National Geographic reconstruction do suggest this is plausible, as that face looks quite a bit different from the mask. Does anybody have a reference? Rd232 09:38, 11 August 2005 (UTC)"

Your reference: "Treasures of Tutankhamun," The Metropolitan Museum of Art, 1976. ISBN: 0-87099-156-6.

Thank you. Rd232 09:33, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

The Salient Line

Was, "These questions rise wholly from the excitement Tutankhamun brought to the archaeological world, and for that are significant to his story."

By Andropolis. (Top section). In my opinion this entire article needs to be rewritten head-to-toe. (Petrograd 09:14, 23 August 2005 (UTC))

Rd232, HELP!!!

The article is being viciously assaulted by radical supremecist "207.188.79.177" --

What can we do? Write me.

(Petrograd 18:07, 29 August 2005 (UTC))

I've cleaned this up now. And I hope the anon is going to be more helpful now - in particular, in raising disagreements here instead of repeatedly making controversial edits. Rd232 14:24, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

You're a godsend, Rd. Thank you. My eyes have found relief at last. (Petrograd 07:26, 1 September 2005 (UTC))

Skin tone

I see Deecee has been here pursuing her black Egyptian agenda with her usual relentlessness and disingenuousness. I assume she added the following "Others scholars insist that at the time of King Tutankhamun, dynastic Egypt remained substantially black African in nature, with an influx of Nubian blood into the royal line during the seventeenth and eighteenth dynasties. (See Afrocentrism#Egypt and Black Identity.)". I think this sentence is wholly inappropriate. What "scholars"? What is the evidence for "Nubian blood"? These would be the afrocentrist writers presumably. If we are to have this, then we logically should also have "Others scholars insist that at the time of King Tutankhamun, dynastic Egypt remained substantially white in nature, with an influx of Nordic blood into the royal line during the seventeenth and eighteenth dynasties. (See "March of the Titans".)". I've just had to remove white supremacist drivel about blond Nordics from the Tiy, Yuya and Tjuyu articles. If we allow afrocentrist scholars to "insist" on their view we have to have the alternative, leading to the kind of unhistorical chaos that has overtaken the Afrocentrism article. Paul B 07:28 5 September 2005 (UTC)

A response

Such ad hominem remarks in the edit notes and on the discussion page and deliberately mischaracterizing my edits as "vandalism" evidence a lack of maturity and civility which are counterproductive to the wiki process -- as well as are usual indicators of weaknesses in the factual nature of the accompanying complaints (whining) :p.

The photo I inserted of a close-up of the burial mask is perfectly appropriate here -- and provides visual information not available in the black-and-white photo being doggedly and repeatedly substituted for it. It adds absolutely nothing to the article. The color photo/close-up, however, does. Certainly, the repeated reverting of this photo is malicious and an attempt at censorship -- as evidenced by the strident, antagonistic tone of the perpetrator.

And "scholars?" Let's start with Petrie: [[1] regarding the Oromo (Galla) and of Egypt (also Ethiopia, Eritrea, Abyssinia). The Tigre peoples of whom Petrie writes are also found in modern-day Ethiopia and Eritrea.

http://www.homestead.com/wysinger/ahmosenefertari.html. Contemporaneous proof of the blackness of the pharonic line during this period is omnipresent -- starting with the afroed Queen Tiye[2] (a dead ringer for Pulitzer Prize-winning poet Gwendolyn Brooks), whose likeness appears in the article. See also the detailed information and links provided in the "Egypt and Black Identity" related to the cranial analysis of royal mummies of several dynasties in Afrocentrism.

Tiye likely married Amenhotep while he was a prince. She is believed to have been only 11 or 12 years old at the time of the marriage. She was intelligent and diligent, the first queen of Egypt to have her name on official acts, including the announcement of the king's marriage to a foreign princess.

After giving birth to Akhenaten and a number of royal daughters, (Sitamen, Henuttaneb, Nebetiah, and Aset) Tiye urged her oldest daughter, Princess Sitamun, to marry the king. It is believed that she did this in order to ensure royal heirs to the throne. Queen Tiye was a full-blooded African from Nubia. Her son, Akhenaten and his wife Nefertiti also ruled Egypt. Ay was Queen Tiye's brother.

There is considerable archaeological and textual evidence indicating that Tutankhamun's probable grandmother was Queen Tiye.[3]

deeceevoice 07:38, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

Note [[http://www.touregypt.net/featurestories/tut.htm]] and the representations of Tut and Kiya. Both wear braided wigs (in the fashion of black Africa) and have the classic Africoid profile: pronounced maxillary and alveolar prognathism, resulting in a receding chin line. And -- surprise -- they are chocolate brown. Furthermore, check out the lips (and the pronounced alveolar prognathism) on the desk mask. That's no white boy.

Lastly, the close-up photo of the death mask is from a site maintained by a JEWISH professor -- not some "radical afrocentric cult." The attempted insertion of such language into the article sounds shrill and really doesn't well serve your flimsy arguments/petulant, snide whining in the least. :p deeceevoice 07:40, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

That language( "radical afrocentric cult") was not inserted into the article, but in an edit comment Jim Apple 03:06, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Furthermore, that the maintainer of a site is Jewish says nothing about it's status as a cult or not. FWIW, it's about a book by one Jewish fellow and one Black American, so mentioning only one of them is, well, only half the story. Jim Apple 03:10, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Nonetheless, readers of this page should not expect objectivity from any outside website mentioned or linked to in the pictures here. We have permission to use the (excellent) image, so it could link to a web site that calls wikipedians crackers and Uncle Toms for all I care. We should be careful about NPOV here, but we can't avoid linking to websites that don't meet that standard. Jim Apple 03:18, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Okay. So, "radical afrocentric cult" was in the edit notes. Such characterizations are not helpful -- and are just as inaccurate as, "In June, 2005, a radical Afrocentric group protested both the National Geographic Society's and the Egyptian Supreme Council of Antiquities' new...." This was not a single group. The protestors also have been characterized as members of the NAACP. What? So now the NAACP is a "radical afrocentric cult/group"? Ridiculous.

The website in question doesn't have anything that reminds me of a cult; They don't preach hate, or brainwash people, or worship their Earthly leaders. Jim Apple 19:46, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Some examples of the ad hominem, nasty, name-calling approach taken by various "contributors::

• "Once again wiping clean Deeceevoice's violent vandalism; removed photo with very visible link to radical Afrocentric cult "Return to Glory" - edit note User:Petrograd
• "(Dutifully bypassed the chip on Deeceevoice's shoulder. Re-instated maliciously excised relevances. Will continue to do so as often as necessary.) - edit note User:Petrograd
• "Bypassed malicious Deeceevoice + "Afrocentric" edits. AFROCENTRISM IS IMPROPERLY NAMED: *OF COURSE* TUTANKHAMUN WAS AFRICAN, EGYPT IS *IN* AFRICA. SKIN TONE DOES NOT EFFECT THIS.)" - edit note User:Petrograd
• "(Being "shrill" is more honest than your toxic insidiousness, Dee. Every change reverted. "Original" a misnomer on Wikipedia.)" - edit note User:Petrograd
• "(Once again wiping clean Deeceevoice's violent vandalism; removed photo with very visible link to radical Afrocentric cult "Return to Glory".)" - edit note User:Petrograd
• "(Dutifully bypassed the chip on Deeceevoice's shoulder. Re-instated maliciously excised relevances. Will continue to do so as often as necessary.)" - edit note User:Petrograd
• "I see Deecee has been here pursuing her black Egyptian agenda with her usual relentlessness and disingenuousness. I assume she added the following "Others scholars insist that at the time of King Tutankhamun, dynastic Egypt remained substantially black African in nature, with an influx of Nubian blood into the royal line during the seventeenth and eighteenth dynasties. (See Afrocentrism#Egypt and Black Identity.)". I think this sentence is wholly inappropriate. What "scholars"?" - talk page User:Paul Barlow (Note: No response when I provided various quotes from the Father of Egyptology W.M. Petrie.)

Grow up, people. deeceevoice 19:30, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

AFROCENTRISM WRONGLY EMPHASIZES SKIN TONE OVER GEOGRAPHY.

This characteristic of "Afro"centrism frustrates to no end, especially as it is often applied to subjects like Ancient Egypt, stressing an African connection there as if Egypt were not, of course, rising out of African sand:

People indigenous to Africa are not "dark" on the whole, yet that seems to be what "African" has become metonymous for (with "Afrocentrists"). So entire swaths of FACTUAL Africans are disregarded as unimportant or "not the whole story," when they're just as native to the continent as its darker central population. EGYPT, ANCIENT OR MODERN, IS AN AFRICAN COUNTRY.

PLEASE STOP ALLEGING THAT THERE IS A CONTROVERSY WHEN NONE EXISTS.

YOU ARE STRESSING THE WRONG THING. AFROCENTRISM SHOULD INFER A GEOGRAPHIC CONNECTION, AND IF YOU WERE TO ARGUE ON THAT BASIS ALONE, NO ONE WOULD COUNTER THAT EGYPT IS NOT AN AFRICAN COUNTRY.

When you stress one SHADE of African over others, darkness over less dark, you are in fact practicing your own kind of racial favoritism, not unlike that invoked by the Hutu to slaughter the native Tutsi of Rwanda in the early nineties.

So: STOP. Learn what "Afrocentrism" actually means, and ground your arguments in geography, not shade. (Petrograd 18:17, 6 September 2005 (UTC))

And I'm not the one who made a subhead devoted to "Skin tone." And I don't know who you've been lookin' at; but, yes, on the whole, Africans are, indeed, "dark." They certainly aren't, predominantly speaking, anywhere near is pale/pasty as the French reconstruction -- are they? Further, what's Afrocentrism got to do with this? I'm writing about facts -- which you cannot refute. Time to tone down your strident, ad hominem attacks and get off that tired "Afrocentrism sux" tip. Time for a reality check. deeceevoice 18:52, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

To call the tripe you write "fact," Dee, is an obscene molestation of the word. Africans of the northern regions are indeed lighter and brighter than farther south -- this is reflected very visibly in today's African population. The French reconstruction is hardly "pale and pasty," but no one asserted it represented an accurate skin shade. All we can do is reconstruct topographies, not tones. "Afrocentrism" is not an appropriate label for what you and others have attempted to veer this article toward -- Afrocentrism would be an attempt to prove someone of antiquity originated in Africa, which in the case of an Egyptian pharaoh, save the late Ptolemaic dynasties, is a given. Instead, you're stirring dust and attempting to make a "big issue" out of the fact that some forensic evidence might prove Tutankhamun was . . . African . . .

Something that was NEVER in dispute!!

You're not as bright as you think you are, Dee. You don't have the right to treat others so dismissively. Self-congratulatory delusions notwithstanding. (Petrograd 19:27, 6 September 2005 (UTC))

Grow up!

Okay. So, "radical afrocentric cult" was in the edit notes. Such characterizations are not helpful -- and are just as inaccurate as, "In June, 2005, a radical Afrocentric group protested both the National Geographic Society's and the Egyptian Supreme Council of Antiquities' new...." This was in the article. This was not a single group. The protestors also have been characterized as members of the NAACP. What? So now the NAACP is a "radical afrocentric cult/group"? Ridiculous.

Some examples of the ad hominem, nasty, name-calling approach taken by various "contributors":

• "Once again wiping clean Deeceevoice's violent vandalism; removed photo with very visible link to radical Afrocentric cult "Return to Glory" - edit note User:Petrograd
• "(Dutifully bypassed the chip on Deeceevoice's shoulder. Re-instated maliciously excised relevances. Will continue to do so as often as necessary.) - edit note User:Petrograd
• "Bypassed malicious Deeceevoice + "Afrocentric" edits. AFROCENTRISM IS IMPROPERLY NAMED: *OF COURSE* TUTANKHAMUN WAS AFRICAN, EGYPT IS *IN* AFRICA. SKIN TONE DOES NOT EFFECT THIS.)" - edit note User:Petrograd
• "(Being "shrill" is more honest than your toxic insidiousness, Dee. Every change reverted. "Original" a misnomer on Wikipedia.)" - edit note User:Petrograd
• "(Once again wiping clean Deeceevoice's violent vandalism; removed photo with very visible link to radical Afrocentric cult "Return to Glory".)" - edit note User:Petrograd
• "(Dutifully bypassed the chip on Deeceevoice's shoulder. Re-instated maliciously excised relevances. Will continue to do so as often as necessary.)" - edit note User:Petrograd
• "I see Deecee has been here pursuing her black Egyptian agenda with her usual relentlessness and disingenuousness. I assume she added the following "Others scholars insist that at the time of King Tutankhamun, dynastic Egypt remained substantially black African in nature, with an influx of Nubian blood into the royal line during the seventeenth and eighteenth dynasties. (See Afrocentrism#Egypt and Black Identity.)". I think this sentence is wholly inappropriate. What "scholars"?" - talk page User:Paul Barlow (Note: No response when I provided various quotes from the Father of Egyptology W.M. Petrie.)
• "To call the tripe you write "fact," Dee, is an obscene molestation of the word." - talk page User: Petrograd
• "You're not as bright as you think you are, Dee. You don't have the right to treat others so dismissively. Self-congratulatory delusions notwithstanding." - talk page User:Petrograd

Grow up, people. deeceevoice 19:30, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Ignore Deeceevoice's Desperate Attacks

They signal only a failure to look beyond ego and acknowledge personal mistakes. I have never authored an unwarranted comment or exacted an inappropriate modification of Wiki content. That is the domain of Deeceevoice. It is ironic to create such a laundry list and follow it with the gross insult, "Grow up." Clearly, every statement listed was richly provoked by Dee herself, often sockpuppeting as an anonymous IP address beginning "207." This "scare" tactic, this scurrilous anti-user propaganda, is a disgusting and unwarranted "response" to very appropriate Tutankhamun article alterations. And every word of it has been reported.(Petrograd 19:40, 6 September 2005 (UTC))

What? You see the mere reproduction of your comments as "desperate attacks"? That's mildly amusing. :p deeceevoice 19:47, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Me? With a sockpuppet? That's hilarious. You're embarrassing yourself even further. Prove it! I dare you. Perhaps you'd like to take this matter to a user RfC? H-m-m-m? Just say the word. I'm ready.deeceevoice 19:57, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Highly improbable. The anon user has rather limited edit competence, and Deeceevoice is an experienced Wikipedian. Do calm down, Petrograd. Take a cold shower or something. We can sort this out like adults, if we all keep our heads. Rd232 20:08, 6 September 2005 (UTC)