Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2010-05-23/Battle of Rorke's Drift

Where is the dispute?
Battle of Rorke's Drift

Who is involved?
Just a list of the users involved. For example:


 * User:Enon
 * User:Tttom

What is the dispute?
My (Enon) edits to Battle of Rorke's Drift were reverted in their entirety by Tttom. I believe at least the new references I added should have been preserved.

I also believe the tags (refimprove, copyedit, and original research) at the beginning of the article are there unnecessarily, and that the article is better in those regards than most articles not carrying those tags.

Tttom has also removed pre-existing references in the article to the British Battles site, references which I believe have some value (see also Talk:Battle of Rorke's Drift).

What would you like to change about this?
I intend to re-revert and would like some 3rd party verification that this is not inappropriate. Please advise User:Tttom that it would be better to edit a bit more selectively in order to preserve valuable portions of other users' changes.

How do you think we can help?
Please advise each of us to what extent our edits of this article appear to you to be appropriate, questionable, or inappropriate.

Mediator notes
I want to hear from both sides before mediating. It should be noted that I cannot "tell" anyone to do anything, but I can make strong reccomendations. This case seems purely policy driven, which beggs the question: Why can this not be worked out on the talk page, I mean policy is policy, or am I misinterpreting the situation?

Reccomendations
All I have to say here is a simple reminder to always use reliable sourcing.

Opening Statements
Hi, I'm the other editor in the dispute here. Prior to the edits by Enon, the use of British Battles website was tagged as an unreliable source as per WP:SELFPUBLISH : "Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason self-published media—including but not limited to books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, personal or group blogs, Internet forum postings, and tweets—are largely not acceptable. Self-published material may in some circumstances be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications. Caution should be exercised when using such sources: if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else is likely to have done so." This clearly describes why British Battles is not a reliable source while legitimately published author Ian Knight's web site might be a reliable source. Prior to this, on the discussion page, I indicated that the unreliable refs would be removed, however some weeks later Enon removed the tags without discussion (he added some rationale later). I reverted to earlier tagged version but then decided it was best to remove all the BB refs - As far as I can tell I left other legit refs there.Tttom1 (talk) 17:08, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Tttom alleged on the talk page that the source (British Battles, BB) was unreliable without evidence. I gave a counterargument on the talk page immediately after editing. (See Talk:Battle of Rorke's Drift in the "Reliable Sources" section ). The page was tagged with "refimprove", asking for additional references rather than "Unreliable sources" or "Self-published" tags which would seem to be what Tttom meant. I edited the page to add 2 new references (not BB), made some text edits (adding back a famous quote from the battle, with a source) and removed the tags which no linger seemed to be needed. That was all in one edit with the summary: "Removed tags - see talk - added back "Here they come,..." quote, with new references, used those references in 2 other existing statements. Rather than check what changes had been made in the edit and preserving the new references, Tttom apparently took umbrage at my counterargument to his assertion on the talk page that BB was an unreliable source and reverted the page in its entirety rather than simply removing the BB references or adding the tags back.

Here's my proposal: I want to revert to get back my changes without having another inappropriate revert. Tttom agrees not to delete or revert my references. Then I'd go along with the following:
 * Tttom can then go back and delete the BB inline references again, (major concession for me)
 * but BB should be moved to the external references section (without prejudice to its text's value, the pictures at BB are worth linking)
 * the refimprove (or similar) tag can stay,
 * but if Tttom is interested in improving the article rather than just tagging, it would be more constructive for him to add better references, perhaps starting with the ones recently added on the talk page.
 * the copyedit tag should be changed to the more specific "inappropriate tone" tag,
 * the OR tag goes unless there is specific evidence to back it up

I'm willing to listen to any reasonable counter-offer.Enon (talk) 21:41, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Enon, what do you define as reasonable? Ronk01 (talk) 02:05, 25 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I already added BB to external links section. Enon is under the misapprehension that I put all the tags on this article. The article was tagged with 'refimprove citation needed' previously and had recently been tagged in line by me as having 'unreliable sources' based on wp  policy stated above - these are two different events and issues. I have made numerous well-sourced edits to this article in response to the citation needed tag. Someone else plopped a bunch of end of paragraph refs to BB to make it look better sourced when it wasn't. Deleting unreliable sources is not inappropriate - deleting tags with no prior discussion is inappropriate. If Enon wants to make edits that have reliable sources, I have no objection unless it involves OR or SYN which seems to be his secondary issue on the talk page. He is unclear as to what OR and Syn is. Other editors have tried to get him to view relevant wiki guidelines.Tttom1 (talk) 02:23, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Discussion
Ttom first removed citations to the British Battles website from the Rorke's Drift article in March 2010 (see, noting his position on the talk page on 4 March. Both these actions precede Enon's first edit to the article by over two months.  Having had the article on my watchlist for some time, I saw his edits, and concurred, though did not feel it was necesary to specifically comment on the talkpage.  Enon then edited a few days ago, and while some of the additional cites to Knight may be useful, the nature of his edit made it very difficult to unravel the useful stuff from his unilateral, and undiscussed, removal of tags.

My understanding of the reliable sources policy is that it is up to those proposing to use a given source to show that it meets our criteria for a reliable source. I have posted links on the talkpage which show the sorts of questions that get asked during the Featured Article process on the reliability of sources. Despite this Enon continues to insist that unless British battles can be directly shown to be incorrect, it should be regarded as reliable. David Underdown (talk) 14:26, 25 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Tttom can then go back and delete the [Britishbattles.com] inline references again, (major concession for me) Let's be clear that this is in fact required by all relevant policies (as outlined by several users)&mdash;regardless of the outcome of this process&mdash;and can by no means be considered a "concession" in some sort of gentlemen's agreement. Albrecht (talk) 16:50, 25 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I personally look at this issue policywise, and concurr with the removal of [Britishbattles.com] reffrences based on policy. I do still have concerns though, as this was not the only unreliable source. Ronk01 (talk) 00:35, 26 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Thank you, Ronk01, for your kind assistance in this matter.Best, Tttom1 (talk) 16:32, 26 May 2010 (UTC)