Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2010-04-03/Jat people

Where is the dispute?
The dispute is on my talk page and another editors talk page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Sikh-history#reverting_my_edits_in_jat_people http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Profitoftruth85#Jat_People

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jat#Origins_and_genetic_studies

Who is involved?

 * User:Profitoftruth85
 * User:Sikh-history
 * User:Dbachmann

What is the dispute?

 * Reliability of sources
 * The Indian Empire: Its people, history, and products by William Wilson Hunter
 * Census of India, 1901, Volume 1 by Sir Edward Albert Gait
 * POV allegations regarding mentions of Romany
 * I have nothing against having a mention of the connection but as it stands now the entire section is basically about Romany origins and not jat origins, so it seems a bit irrelevant
 * the other editor claims I have POV but I think the current article now has a bit of POV if the entire section about origins is dominated by something not completely relevant
 * arrangement of pictures
 * I arranged the pictures of prominent jat leaders to be in an order that corresponds to their time period but the other editor rearranged them

What would you like to change about this?
I would like to see both sides lay out there points and reach a consensus. As it stands now, the other editor simply reverts my edits, I will improve the edit, and then he will revert it again, and threaten to ban me...

How do you think we can help?
Provide another opinion. My edits can be continuously undone by the other editor even after I provide justification and try to explain my edits to him.

Mediator notes
I will not provide an opinion but I would help structure discussion and hopefully prevent revert warring. If the parties are ameniable to this, I would take this case. Hipocrite (talk) 17:29, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree Profitoftruth85 (talk) 18:01, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

And the rest of the parties? Hipocrite (talk) 12:43, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi Hipocrite, I think you need to speak to the Admin dab (𒁳) rather than me, as all I have done is reverted back to his edits. Thanks--Sikh- History 11:56, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

That's 2 of three. Is DAB ok with me mediating this? Hipocrite (talk) 13:14, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
 * To be honest Hipocrite we are treading over the same ground some months ago. If you look at the discussion at Jat People you will see the discussion we had about deleted racial theories from the 1850's. Please take a look. I think DAB is OK, with it but ask him. Thanks--Sikh- History 16:47, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

As I have history (neither positive nor negative, I think) with Dbachmann, and he does not appear to be responding here, I'm going to release this back into the Q for another mediator shortly. Hipocrite (talk) 14:22, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

This appears old and has worked itself out now looking at the article. I would encourage those involved to make use of the talk page. --Wgfinley (talk) 21:44, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Discussion

 * This is not strictly true. We had Mediation before, where the admin DBachmann was involved in this article and many irrelevant sources and references such as those introduced by ProfitofTruth were discussed and removed as being irrelevant and speculative. ProfitofTruth is relatively new to this article, and many editors have worked hard to make this article encyclopeadic. Thanks--Sikh- History 08:32, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Profitoftruth85 has less than 200 edits. They do not need "mediation", they would be better off with a mentor introducing them to topics like encyclopedicity, collaborative effort and WP guidelines. --dab (𒁳) 10:03, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

It's true I have not made as many edits as dab and sikh-history but that isn't reason to dismiss the mediation outright. Both of these editors talk about the encyclopedic value of the article but my edits have not taken away from its encyclopedicity but rather improved it. However, the recent discovery in 2009 of the "Jat mutation" that causes a type of glaucoma in Romani people. (This isn't even a proper sentence!)
 * For example, I rearranged the pictures of historic jat leaders to correspond to their time period, which was changed by sikh-history.
 * The article is not encyclopedic as it stands now;
 * Additionally to prove their point they have a block quote that cites a press release, an article about the press release, and a book. The Press release is a dead link and the news article has more information on Glaucoma treatment and prejudices against Romany than actual facts about the study. The book they have as a citation for that quote was published in 2004 so I don't see how it could be cited for this quote.

As you can see from the nature of that block quote the current article is hardly the best wikipedia can offer. I think Sikh-History manages to contribute a great deal to wikipedia but he is putting a stranglehold on the article by reverting edits he doesn't approve of yet not improving the sections that need work. I just want to improve the article and it is frustrating when he accuses me of POV without using WP:AGF.Profitoftruth85 (talk) 13:26, 8 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Ironic I am accused of putting a "stranglehold" yet at the same time WP:AGF is being cited? The Roma addition was properly cited and added by another editor who edits the Roma based articles. It is current and verifiable. This is not a dead link. As for the rearranged pictures, I have no objection to that. Thanks--Sikh- History 08:03, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

I never said that link was dead, I said the press release from Leeds University was dead.I cited WP:AGF because you reverted my edits even after I properly cited my references.What I did below isn't a back and forth but I just want to show that my addition of two sources was blown way out proportion.
 * The problem is the references you have found are google, when actually checked they don't actually say what you are claiming. Regards Sikh-History

I fixed my citations here here in response
 * STOP adding back the same references again and again as you will be blocked. Thanks Sikh-History

really doesn't make sense considering my sources are now properly cited and reflect what the sentence says.

He also talks about deleting the part about the Romany in the article being POV. Well as I stated on his talk page I deleted it because I didn't think that much text was necessary. The section is supposed to be about Jat origins. Origin means where something comes from but instead the entire section is not about where jat people come from but rather where Romany people come from. I'm not denying the validity of the sources... all I'm saying that on the section on jat origins 178 of its meager 214 words are on the connection between Romany and jat peoples but on the romany page there is 139 words on the connection between Romany and jat peoples. Profitoftruth85 (talk) 18:12, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Well I reverted back to dab's version. He is an Admin. I think you should consult him. Thanks