Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2009-09-01/Jesse James

Where is the dispute?
Jesse James, Talk:Jesse James

Who is involved?

 * User:Wildhartlivie
 * User:Kasaalan

What is the dispute?
This dispute surrounds the use of sources to support additions to the lead of the article which only quote reliable sources, rather than using those sources directly.
 * Proper references to be used, which do not include film reviewer articles or articles which only quote, in questionable ways, possibly relevant sources. I have never said Hobsbawn should not be used, I have said that Hobsbawn should be used directly, not paraphrased in ways that may not reflect the original source.
 * Proper weight to give modern views/legacy section in the article lead.
 * Proper lead content does not include barely paraphrased copy & paste from other sections.
 * Discussion without contention and tenditiousness.
 * Part of the problem comes from the fact that the insertion is badly written, uses poor English grammar and therefore renders it questionable.
 * As a follow-up - the accusations in the below post reflect a large part of the dispute. This editor cannot make posts without being contentious and accusatory. The page is currently locked because of the problems in this dispute, and rightly so, since nothing should be added under the circumstances.

What is the dispute by Kasaalan

 * The "mediation" request entries by user are highly WP:POV


 * User is a defender of "James gang only stole for himself and never helped the poor" view and tries removing other views presented in the article than the one she defends.
 * While "James gang never helped the poor" theory might be possibly true, other views exist over how she helped the poor or fought against "enemies" of the poor which is why she is admired in folk tales. So some of the folk tales also added in summary style
 * User tries to remove with various non-relevant objections over WP:RS like The Guardian article by an independent journalist, who partly quotes and partly summarize from Hobsbawn's book, unnecessarily claiming "questionable" quote since journalist is not a historian, which only indicates her own WP:POV
 * While she objects Guardian article which quotes from WP:RS, she uses an opinion piece, in Seattle Times "book review" article, of a historical fiction book's non-historian writer, which indicates double standard and selective use of sources to defend a certain view.


 * Notable British Historian Eric Hobsbawn's book which is a classic about social bandits should be included in the article, since she has a devoted section for James gang.


 * Stiles, T.J. objection Hobsbawn should be used, yet reasonable doubt about his theories also should be added. she stresses terror] term too much after 9/11 to as a boost to his sales.


 * The already presented arguments about James was a racist, slaver and massacre committer are possibly true, yet they should be expanded and improved
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jesse_James&diff=310533490&oldid=310532923 revert by admin should be reverted on wikilinks and details for massacre section since she is not reverting herself and waiting mediation


 * Most of all WP:LEAD is weak and does not reflect any detail or major event. Sections should also be improved, yet admins closed the article until the dispute is over, which wastes time.
 * LEAD doesn't reflect neither modern nor traditional views fully, while the sources for "modern" claims for "money sharing" in the sections are vague, since some leading ones aren't available online and the referenced parts weren't quoted.


 * Selective copy paste and merge-paraphrase from section to lead shouldn't be an issue, it is a natural procedure to improve lead
 * I am not a native English speaker, grammar issues can be easily solved by native English speaker WP:GOODFAITH editors if grammar is the only issue
 * While I created many proposals, by hard research and new WP:RS, none bothered to help, edit or improve proposals yet of conflicted issues, yet user tries to order around about grammar, with no actual help over improving grammar.


 * As a summary, All of my improvement proposals in talk page are ignored, so 3rd party editors, who can read sources fully and interpret them as WP:NPOV, are required for http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Jesse_James#Conflicts section, since we can't even mediate in basics with objecting party. I may create a more clear section for discussions if it gets too long. Kasaalan (talk) 15:22, 11 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Also unprogressive edits of the user doesn't stop. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jesse_James&diff=313540776&oldid=313539347 her reverts do do not let any improvement in the article. While no quality sources like http://www.1st-stop-county-kerry.com/Asdee.html stays in the same section she tries to claim better quality reference with photographic evidence, http://www.roadsideamerica.com/story/16176 is not a WP:RS so should be removed and claims in the entry should stay without any reference. Kasaalan (talk) 09:49, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

For the record, posting here that I am supporting an old source that is in an article that may not meet WP:RS, while at the same time disputing the new addition of a source that does not meet WP:RS is basically a blatant lie. Please do not go around posting such misleading statements. The issues at hand are the sources to private, self-published, non-vetted sites that you are claiming are reliable because they have photos. Meanwhile, take 30 seconds to look at someone's user page and determine if the person is a he or a she. People become offended quite easily when you don't bother to determine the difference. Wildhartlivie (talk) 11:19, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

What would you like to change about this?
Because discussion has been unsuccessful, with one party becoming increasingly contentious while only repeating the same comments, discussion is going nowhere.
 * There is no answer or help by other parties including user also since the article is locked other views are required. Kasaalan (talk) 15:22, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

How do you think we can help?
No one has disputed that the lead of this article could and should be expanded. The problem has come from trying to insert into the introduction content not covered in the main article, using a large quote from a source that only partially, and in perhaps questionable ways, quotes from a reliable and relevant source. I have stated repeatedly if that source (Eric Hobsbawm) is relevant, then that source is what should be used, not a newspaper article regurgitating his words in a way that cannot be verified. Wildhartlivie (talk)
 * Not questionably at all, the quote with some summary by WP:RS news source from another scholar WP:RS. You repeatedly stated after you removed and the article is locked, while not helping or replying proposals. I will directly quote from Hobsbawn too, yet your continuous objection is not only unnecessary, but also shows your way of "defending" your single view. You could have searched for the direct quote for yourself, did you. Moreover, the reference you try to dictate in the lead, for James gang only stole for themselves, was just a "No" from a newspaper article of a fictonal book review. Also I provided a second reference that quotes from same book, if you checked. So there is no doubt about quote. Kasaalan (talk) 15:22, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Kasaalan, please do not use a mediation request to continue arguments. This is not the time nor the place. I will not respond and continue arguing here, nor is there any current reason to continue the same argument on the article talk page until the time comes that mediation is accepted and begun. That is why no one is responding to your continued proposals on the talk page. It's pointless until mediation begins. Wildhartlivie (talk) 21:08, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
 * If you could put an WP:NPOV dispute request I wouldn't argue, yet you chose a highly WP:POV one based of false accusations so I answered. Kasaalan (talk) 23:18, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Mediator notes

 * I'll mediate the issue. The discussion will start in the discussion section below with some questions of mine. [Belinrahs &#124; 'sup? &#124; what'd I do?] 16:28, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Discussion
Hello editors - I will begin this by asking you a few questions.
 * I would like you to both describe to me, with the help of the respective policy pages if you wish, how the following policies apply to this article and/or issue, and what you believe should be, continuing to be compliant with Wikipedia policies such as these, included/changed in the article.
 * 1) WP:NPOV -AND- WP:POV
 * 2) WP:RS
 * 3) WP:GOODFAITH
 * 4) WP:PSTS


 * Please tell me what sources you are using to come up with each view as you want them to be included. Are these sources primary, secondary, or tertiary?

This is what I'll start with. Thank you in advance for each of your answers. [Belinrahs &#124; 'sup? &#124; what'd I do?] 16:28, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

As a summary


 * 1) WP:NPOV, WP:POV. WP:RS The main issue with the user is she tries to use sources selectively according to a certain point of view
 * 2) I try to add Eric Hobsbawm's social bandits thesis into the article which is directly related to Jesse James myth, while the user tries every excuse in the book to not include it, including calling verifiable WP:RS newspaper article quote as "non-reliable" or "movie review" while she tries to use a newspaper historical-fiction "book review" as a WP:RS as a single reference for "Jesse James only stole for himself" theory, which indicates double standards with the user.
 * 3) While article's lead section is extremely weak, and does not fulfill any entry in WP:LEAD [the lead didn't even contain info over James' assassination before I added it], user does not attempt improve it, does not let me improve it by fully reverting every edit attempt of mine, including minor ones or even wikilink additions, by various excuses including my bad English grammar [my grammar isn't good but that is no good excuse for a full revert, if my edits contain grammatical errors they can be improved by other users] or WP:RS quoting from a WP:RS "is not reliable enough" wasting lots of my time when I had free time for improving article in august and september [because of the thesis I will be busy following months] ... I currently have hard time assuming any WP:GOODFAITH, and I have serious doubts if the user has any kind of scholar experience [though she acts and talks like she sets the standard about history cases].
 * 4) I already posted conflicted cases since 28th August in Talk:Jesse_James. User replied "Not going to debate this with you now, Kasaalan. This is subject for mediation." and didn't help improving my proposals in anyway, while constantly reverting me meantime which took more than 1 month to even start. Yet however I put it, it is not useful to talk about each other's behaviour, faith or attitude. I also don't have much time for that.
 * 5) So as a request if we can discuss each disputed case separately and work things out, mediation might end useful for each party. Talk:Jesse_James contains most of the conflicts, should we add them there or should we talk there. Basically if more history related editors help the better. Kasaalan (talk) 23:02, 9 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I have a basic response to this. I don't try to use sources selectively and from the outset, the personal aspersions being made about me is why I quit trying to deal with this editor and asked for mediation. No one disputed that the lead could be improved, but each time the other editor worked on the lead, she introduced content that was not covered in the main article, which is completely contrary to WP:LEAD. An administrator stepped in and reverted his work as well. My main objection to what Kasaalan was doing with the Hobsbawm content was that she was trying to include it through a different source other than Hobsbawm's actual work. It is in no way clear precisely what of the content was actually Hobsbawm and what was an interpretation of it by an author of an article. I said more than once that if Hobsbawm is a relatively important source, then Hobsbawm's own work is what should be used. One cannot introduce a source borrowed by another author as authoritative. I can see no valid reason why anyone else should have to fumble through cleaning up after another editor's work, especially after the other editor is malicious enough to make statements like "I have serious doubts if the user has any kind of scholar experience [though she acts and talks like she sets the standard about history cases]". That she turns around to say it isn't useful to talk about the other editor is miniscule after first attacking me. That is intolerable and I will not take it here either. It was apparent that no progress was being made and since mediation had been requested, there was no point in continuing through the same disagreements over and over. If Kasaalan cannot participate in this mediation without attacking me, I will gladly ask for administrator intervention here as well. Intolerable. Wildhartlivie (talk) 00:54, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

''"No one disputed that the lead could be improved, but each time the other editor worked on the lead, she introduced content that was not covered in the main article, which is completely contrary to WP:LEAD."  "An administrator stepped in and reverted his work as well."'' "My main objection to what Kasaalan was doing with the Hobsbawm content was that she was trying to include it through a different source other than Hobsbawm's actual work. It is in no way clear precisely what of the content was actually Hobsbawm and what was an interpretation of it by an author of an article. I said more than once that if Hobsbawm is a relatively important source, then Hobsbawm's own work is what should be used. One cannot introduce a source borrowed by another author as authoritative." "If Kasaalan cannot participate in this mediation without attacking me, I will gladly ask for administrator intervention here as well. Intolerable."
 * 1) Easy solution they can be also added into main text. Also the main additions to lead, came from other wiki articles like Robert Ford (outlaw) (you can easily tell) or sourced context.
 * 1) That is quite an accomplishment of your revert work which turned into edit war. Again he didn't judge the content and acted as stopping edit war, if he did he can join our discussion here.
 * 1) That is just your attitude. A clear quote and paraphrase of historian Eric Hobsbawm's [accomplished as world's one of the best, I again have doubts if user have heard his name or read him before] social bandits book, by an independent journalist whose article published in The Guardian which is WP:RS. You claimed it is not, since it is "a movie review" which is a clearly false argument. [it is judge book by the cover] While you also try to use a historical-fiction book review article as a WP:RS, that is based on work and views of a literature professor as a WP:RS. That is double standard by any means.
 * 2) Yet skipping this accusation process is better with both parties consent. Debating case by case is way better for a solution.
 * 1) You may or not, your choice. You started unnecessary edit wars with full reverts yourself. When it comes to facts, references will talk and your false assumptions over facts will be revealed. Kasaalan (talk) 10:14, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Response (and please stop using the number key for your points. It creates difficulty in trying follow the numbering because it changes depending on what is written between the number sign.) 1. There is no reason to have to add to the content of the article in order to cover what you want to put in the lead. That's not how leads are written, they are summaries of the article content, which is written first. Ridiculous. And for your edification, taking out paragraphs and mass edit correcting of "he" to "she" has created several errors to words in the above postings that have nothing to do with pronoun usage. (6 instances where a version of the word "help" was changed to "shelp" and two where "Heaton Bowman" was changed to "sheaton Bowman".)

2. Administrator reverts on the article and the edit summaries speak for them: "not reliable sources. Use the talk page", "rm unattributed quote", "rm part that is essentially plagiarising the source, which is a big no-go", "adding dispute tag and clearing out bad-grammar section in lede". None of these reverts were on edits that I made. From the talk page: Wherein administrator supports my comments about the sourcing and comments about the problems with Kasaalan's editing, wherein adminstrator admonishes Kasaalan for misuse of source leading to plagiarism and for language problems in general, wherein adminstrator has to respond to Kasaalan's use of the source again and calling him on plagiarism, and wherein administrator admonishes Kasaalan for not abiding by admin request to stop editing.

3 & 4. It is after this that I will not participate further until the mediator steps in because Kasaalan has once again made personal attacks and casts aspersions on me. As I said, this is intolerable behavior and it must stop now, or I'll skip this whole process and go straight to WP:AN/I and request that adminstrators step in and sanction Kasaalan for continuing with his demeaning comments about me or ban him altogether. This is why mediation was requested. "I again have doubts if user have heard his name or read him before". Intolerable and unacceptable, especially when you first attack me and then suggest skipping making accusations. I also note that again Kasaalan has made several comments about me personally below this. I don't plan on responding step by step below except to the following points. I have a Master's degree and some work completed toward a doctorate, not just a bachelor's, however, there is no requirement that anyone have an advanced degree to edit here and do so competently. Further, I have no interest in editing on topics related to my work, don't make assumptions about what interests one includes in one's Wikipedia editing. What does an edit count have to do with anything and why do you think it's important to mention it? Do not lecture me on of what you think proper editing should consist. I'd observe that edit warring cannot exist unless someone else is involved. Wonder who that is? "Wildhart" is an abbreviation of the title of a music album I particularly like. "Livie" is a name. It is up to the mediator to outline how things are going to be discussed, not you, Kasaalan. Please wait until the mediator responds because I won't answer the outline you've made below. Please stop trying to direct the mediation. This is a dispute mediation. It's not the place for a RfC. I will not respond further until the mediator comes in and responds. Wildhartlivie (talk) 21:39, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

"And for your edification, taking out paragraphs and mass edit correcting of "he" to "she" has created several errors to words in the above postings that have nothing to do with pronoun usage."

That is no thanks I assume.

If you are female sorry I will correct myself and previous entries [I don't like wrongly refer to anyone on purpose], though your nick didn't suggest you might be female to me wild hart livie, don't know what livie is. I also don't know where you suggested you are a female. '''I tried to change all he to she. I grant my full apology for such a mistake, my mistake if you mentioned it before.'''

I fully apologized before

I made some serious effort changing every single one of them to correct my mistake. I realized it created other issues, again spent more time correcting them. I apparently missed some [6 as you say], and corrected them after you pointed that out. Yet cannot understand why you aren't still happy about it, and still try to criticize, I didn't expect any thanks but seriously I spent some effort and time just to clear things out for you.

It was my responsibility, I corrected other writing mistakes too. Again calling you wrong pronoun has nothing to do with our argument, I do not use any weasel word or offense by that way. Wild hart = Wild heart sounded male to me so I referred that way. I didn't know what livie is so I didn't know it was a female name. I apologize if any offense to you by that way for my mistake. On the other hand that is not the way for other matters, you wasted a lot of time and effort of mine. Kasaalan (talk) 23:16, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

1. Added content was missing in the article. So whatever you say it was both necessary for lead and article. You are simply wrong.

2. First of all admin did not evaluate content that is clear. He has no expertise in Jesse James and he does not edit article but to protect page. He tried to take precautions over edit war after your full reverts. He first tried to came up with plagiarism, though he was wrong by definition. [a sourced quote is no plagiarism for any article, we already using many much longer blockquotes in various wikipedia articles, also the source texts are so long such small quotes cannot be considered plagiarism, most of the research books in universe are plagiarized in case admin were right] '''I already changed quotes and references quite a while ago, there is no issue about plagiarism whatsoever, so bringing that old issues is not relevant for latest proposals at all. I tried to use talk page, guess who did not reply or participate improving proposals. Does admin has expertise in history. Try to worry more over, what will you claim after the facts I added will be proven here by reference.'''

3. ''I cannot understand what personal attack you refer exactly. Though if you refer to "time waste" or attitude matters, I can simply tell the waiting time you refer it will take over 2 month for me to begin editing [which is equal to 2 month topic ban in practice], which is a clear waste of my time. You don't have to wait mediator to answer if my proposals are alright or not. You are not helping in any way to fasten the process, you are just extending my waiting time. Should I wait 2 months to add wikilinks to an article just because you turn every edit into an edit war. That is why I have hard time considering you are helpful. That was the same reason we are having a serious conflict, you drag me into an edit war, by fully reverting almost all of my edits and when I try to discuss you don't participate factual arguments. My points are very clear below, instead only discussing attitude matters, if you would try improving my proposals below or proving they are wrong by research, I could easily assume WP:GOODFAITH. Your answers shouldn't change after mediator comes, so there is no reason for you to not answer. As a doctorate I expected you to come with counter references against mine, I am still waiting. I am asking you questions, which you ignore and not answer, then tell me to wait mediation and not edit, which I waited 2 months. And when mediation starts I spend a long time to make better proposals, again you ignore then tell me to wait mediator. When will the waiting end and we will have a real discussion over facts. If you would answer or improve my proposals, like you do for attitude discussions, we wouldn't need mediator in the first place. Unless you participate factual debates, there is no point in mediation.'' Kasaalan (talk) 23:21, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

4. "I again have doubts if user have heard his name or read him before" Though you can easily tell whether you read Eric Hobsbawm or heard his name before as an answer to my assumption, you answer as my question-assumption is "Intolerable and unacceptable, especially when you first attack me and then suggest skipping making accusations." If you ask why I asked if you ever read or heard him, is because he is one of the top historians in the world, and anyone who has slightly have interest in history at least heard his name. So not including his views about Jesse James in Jesse James article is only excusable by lack of knowledge. Moreover, since you revert near every edit of mine, who possibly has more knowledge about history research than you, I assume I have some right to ask about that, when we are having a debate over Hobsbawm quotes, while you try to assume-attribute misquoting Hobsbawn for The Guardian article with no clear reason than a slightest possibility, as a reason not to add Hobsbawm's views into the article. There is no "I believe The Guardian article might have misquote or wrongly paraphrase Eric Hobsbawm's social bandits theory, as well as a second article quoting similarly, so we shouldn't use it as a source, even though we use another newspaper's historical-fiction book review which based on interview with its non-historian literature professor author's views to back up a history article" guideline in wikipedia. Kasaalan (talk) 00:22, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

If you really only don't debate because "personal attacks", I deleted them, I may delete rest too if you name them. I was criticizing your attitude simply because you make me wait almost 2 months just to start any debate, which is a clear waste of my time. I put a link for you to ANI if you like link for that part. '''Now will you begin the actual debate or not. I have faith in my own knowledge in Jesse James, do you also have such confidence and will you admit you were wrong about facts like I do.''' I waited almost 2 months just to begin discussing matters with you, when I had more time, and I cannot write or research much during my thesis process. So will you try to fasten process or not. If you begin debating there is no reason to discuss personal matters anyway. Kasaalan (talk) 00:31, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Various issues with a single revert

 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jesse_James&action=historysubmit&diff=313540776&oldid=313539347

list of various issues with revert

1. I may have grammar mistakes as user suggested. That parts may be reverted or improved if user suggests any better sentences. Though my editing mistakes are not a reason for reverting all my other edits with them. I never objected anyone correcting my grammar, I admitted I may make mistakes and asked anyone to fix it if they like.

2. Addition of wikilinks should be restored, especially for military terms. Geographical place wikilinks should be restored. Date wikilinks should be restored since this is a history article per MOS:NUM.


 * "Year articles (1795, 1955, 2007) should not be linked unless they contain information that is germane and topical to the subject matter— that is, the events in the year article should share an important connection other than merely that they occurred in the same year. For instance, Timeline of World War II (1942) may be linked to from another article about WWII, and so too may 1787 in science when writing about a particular development on the metric system in that year. However, the years of birth and death of architect Philip C. Johnson should not be linked, because little, if any, of the contents of 1906 and 2005 are germane to either Johnson or to architecture."

3. See also for James' possible massacres should be restored

4. Epitaph proposal
Addition for template over James epitaph should be restored [the cquote might also be applied as Template:Epigraph as epitaph is similar to epigraph.]

James' mother Zerelda Samuel [James might be better] selected the following epitaph for him http://articles.latimes.com/2007/sep/17/entertainment/et-weekmovie17:

either cquote

In Loving Memory of my Beloved Son, Murdered by a Traitor and Coward Whose Name is not Worthy to Appear here.

or epigraph

or quote

"In Loving Memory of my Beloved Son, Murdered by a Traitor and Coward Whose Name is not Worthy to Appear here."

- Jesse James's epitaph, selected by his mother, Zerelda James

Can we cquote or epigraph the epitaph with or  or not. It is a world famous saying about James written by James' mother, engraved in his stone describing the assassination and Robert Ford (outlaw), to draw reader's attention. I changed wrote to selected as sources indicate. Kasaalan (talk) 22:48, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

5. Heaton Bowman Proposal
Heaton Bowman Smith Funeral Home in 36th and Frederick Avenue, St. Joseph, Missouri claims its predecessor conducted the original autopsy and funeral for Jesse James. A devoted room in the back is claimed to hold the log book and other documentation, as well as the casket that James' body was transferred to the funeral home in. http://www.stjoenews.net/news/2009/aug/31/property-past-aug-31-2009/ http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P2-14682531.html http://www.roadsideamerica.com/story/16176 [contains photographs so I added

Improved with new WP:RS references, no need for hidden text or fact tag. [though as you can tell that is why hidden text is used, so that a required reference can be found later] Do you accept this version or not. Kasaalan (talk) 22:58, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Robert Ford reward case
My proposal to be improved

Missouri Governor Thomas T. Crittenden convinced railroad officials to raise an around 50.000 $ fund for capturing James Gang, then put a 5.000 $ reward for the capture and 5.000 each for the conviction of Jesse or Frank James, and 5.000 $ for all other gang members. Robert Ford's brother Charlie was a member of Jesse's new gang whom he convinced assassination to collect "the highest bounty ever offered for an American outlaw" and achieving fame upon a full pardon promise by Crittenden during his meeting with Crittenden and police officials in a hotel in Kansas City, Missouri. http://www.historynet.com/jesse-jamess-assassination-and-the-ford-boys.htm http://books.google.com/books?id=oK9kTwN_GoMC&source=gbs_navlinks_s page 1881 http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/james/timeline/timeline2.html On April 3, 1882, Jesse James was shot in the back of the head and killed by Robert Ford at his home, after James left his revolvers on a sofa and standing on a chair to clean a picture frame above the mantle. Ford brothers were sentenced for murdering James yet pardoned by Crittenden 2 hours later http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/james/peopleevents/e_death.html http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/WWjamesF.htm, who payed 20.000 $ in total for gang members yet denied to tell who he payed the bounty.

Do you accept this version or like to improve it. Kasaalan (talk) 23:51, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Comments
1. I had posted an analysis of why some things were reverted on the page. For someone who admits that he English grammar isn't ideal, I don't quite understand why he objects to reversions that change back poor grammar. The analysis I posted is at Talk:Jesse James, since that is what Kasaalan called this edit. This seems to me more an issue of just wanting he edit to stand, regardless of the flow and grammar problems and is contradictory to any statement that other users should clean up he grammar. Reverting to the better flow of words is doing just that. Additionally, the editor had reverted an administrator who had told he not to keep making that change.

2 & 3. There is no reason to add "see also" at a section break for terms that are wikilinked in the article. It is unnecessary. The same is true for wikilinking dates. The relevant articles are already wikilinked in the article body, and if they aren't, then they should be. A blank "year" link brings myriad facts that are not in any way germane to this article.

4. I do not think pulling a quote of an epitaph, which would bring such into a featured place in the article, is important enough to be used that way. That isn't any one of the most relevant passages in the article to be singled out. It is treated as part of the text and that is sufficient.

6. Whatever number. It is useless to hide references in hidden notes. That is basically as unproductive as having no source. If there is a source usable, either use it or don't. Finding a cite in the history and hiding it inside the article helps no one. Meanwhile, there is a source at the father's birthplace. It could be an improved reference, but hiding a source doesn't accomplish that.

5. Part of this follows the above comment. If something can't be verified, there is nothing I can find that suggests we hide content in hidden notes pending discovery of sourcing. That makes no sense. Some of that was simply reverting what I removed as unsourced because I was the one who did it. Hidden sources are not sourced content. None of those sources that are listed above were added to the article, however only two of them would pass WP:RS. Four of them are travel websites that parrot what the funeral home publicity has released, one is another Wikipedia article that has no referencing for the mention of the funeral home and nothing about a funeral basket and the third is a blog.

Finally, because you do not agree with me on reversions does not give you license to refer to them as "editing mistakes". That is a continuation of contentiousness. Please desist in being that way. Wildhartlivie (talk) 02:00, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

I suppose I should add I'm quite sick and tired of everything being described as my POV or my opinion. I've tried to explain sourcing guidelines, I'm tired of he repeating statements made by others in regard to his editing elsewhere as arguments he, and the thinly veiled as well as open attacks upon me here. It has to stop. The editor has never tried to add the Hobsbawm work, he has only tried to add sourcing that basically paraphrases the Hobsbawm work. That is not the same thing and I have to question how reliable paraphrased content is to the original. Also take a minute to read my userpage before you attack me regarding scholarship. Finally, I've asked before, I will not ask again. Kasaalan, take a minute to discover whether I am a he or a she. I'm tired of you referring to me with the wrong pronoun. That's simply rudeness in action. Wildhartlivie (talk) 03:03, 10 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I changed title if you are offended. Though instead being so cautious over wording, maybe you should focus on content and debate over facts more. Kasaalan (talk) 23:08, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I corrected my mistake about pronoun. Kasaalan (talk) 23:08, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I hide all of my unnecessary comments [simply because the page gets longer and getting personal not helps] so that we can have a debate, if you are sincere about improving article. I deleted to save space and time waste [also because I already proved my points above and arguments are not necessary anymore to me], if you like to use any ANI process use link. If you put a real effort on improving my assumptions will change, otherwise they won't. I just expect some scholar discussion or research, and still waiting for you to start debate. Kasaalan (talk) 23:58, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Closing comment from mediator
Hello Kasaalan and Wildhartlivie. I've read through all of this and I've decided not to try and resolve this through mediation, which I will safely assume will ultimately be unsuccessful and drag the conflict on longer. Instead, I am now going to refer you; not to WP:ANI but to WP:COIN. There, I will ask you not to continue your arguments; it is best if you each state your opinions respectfully there without pointing fingers at each other. I would strongly recommend that you reference the discussion here when you open a new discussion at WP:COIN. This discussion is getting too heated and is too much for a single mediator to handle. Closing case. [Belinrahs &#124; 'sup? &#124; what'd I do?] 18:33, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Only thing this gets personal is because I am too much frustrated that we couldn't get any discussion over facts for 2 months, since user did not participate factual discussions after a point, claiming we should get a mediation first. 1 mediation strictly rejected, this is second mediation getting rejected. When I try to edit it turns into edit war, since she reverts even minor edits and interestingly I become one to blame. I clearly proved my case relying on references, so discussion over facts isn't needed much anyway. I will try RFC first.
 * Here is the question part, COI means conflict of interest. And since I know I have no COI, and I couldn't assume any COI over user, I only assume she is stubborn over not admitting her mistakes etc., how can WP:COIN may solve the issue.
 * I am not interested with her attitude or personality in anyway. I deleted some of my comments, I can even delete all others except factual proposals, if that means we can have an actual discussion over historical facts. I begin accusations, because she has been ignoring me for 2 months, wrongly reverting every edit of mine which equals to topic ban for me, she neither did improve my proposals nor directly debate with me over the facts in talk page, yet reverting my edits in the article, so we should get a process where we can discuss over facts, or find more users to evaluate facts. Should I really wait 2 months just to add some wikilinks into an article. What on earth should I do, so that I can have a history discussion in wikipedia. I stress that part because I am sure non-involved users won't ignore the facts I presented. Kasaalan (talk) 20:16, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Hey there Kasaalan -- I was incorrect in my quick decision to try and send you to COIN when this isn't a COI at all - my mistake and I profusely apologize. I would suggest that you refile at WP:RFM as in my personal opinion this issue is too deep for informal mediation. Unless you also want to try a request for comment, which I believe would be in vain, you should immediately refile. Refer the committee to this page so they know that this method has been attempted. [Belinrahs &#124; 'sup? &#124; what'd I do?] 02:41, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
 * We bothered you, I also apologize. As far as I know RFC is way to go for first attempts, that is also why first mediation strictly rejected [I suppose] though I know most of the time RFC may not attract attention. I will try not to waste my time over another user's attitude and spend more time on research. However I am still frustrated over not being able to add content where it is needed for weeks, including minor link additions as well as the historical facts, and views of a leading world historian. If we find some other history-oriented users who can evaluate references I have no other issue. Kasaalan (talk) 14:21, 15 October 2009 (UTC)