Wikipedia Mediation Cabal
ArticleTalk:Indian caste system
Statusclosed
Request dateUnknown
Requesting partyHkelkar
Parties involvedBhaiSaab,TerryJ-Ho
CommentClosing for now, can be re-opened if arbCom application is denied...

[[Category:Wikipedia Medcab closed cases|Talk:Indian caste system]][[Category:Wikipedia medcab maintenance|Talk:Indian caste system]]

Mediation Case: 2006-10-18 Indian caste system[edit]

Please observe Wikipedia:Etiquette and Talk Page Etiquette in disputes. If you submit complaints or insults your edits are likely to be removed by the mediator, any other refactoring of the mediation case by anybody but the mediator is likely to be reverted. If you are not satisfied with the mediation procedure please submit your complaints to Wikipedia talk:Mediation Cabal.


Request Information

Request made by: Hkelkar 18:53, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Where is the issue taking place?
... in Talk:Indian caste system
Who's involved?
... Me User:Hkelkar, User:BhaiSaab,User:TerryJ-Ho
What's going on?
... The dispute is over the Caste System among South Asian Muslims, the relevance of the same and the relevance of Islamic scripture in the mandate and implementation of the same.
What would you like to change about that?
...I would like to emphasize that there are two perspectives regarding the origins of the Muslim Caste System. Bearing in mind that Muslims in South Asia have several caste systems per the sources that I have stated in the article and the talk page Talk:Indian caste system. The Muslim editors allege that the entire South Asian Caste System is borrowed from Hinduism. My sources suggest a more complex dynamic. Some of the Muslim Caste Sytems were adaptive, done so by Hindus who were forcibly converted to Islam. Others were sanctioned by Islamic Fatwas by Islamic clerics based on their interpretation of Quranic verses.I believe that the objections of the Muslim editors are more motivated by religious zeal than by cool objectivity and are an attempt to whitewash the issue of Caste among Muslims.
Would you prefer we work discreetly? If so, how can we reach you?
...Contact me whenever you want and I will respond as promptly as I possible can. Reach me by talk page or by email from the wikipedia interface .

Mediator response

This dispute has reached the ArbCom here and is likely to be accepted, so I think this mediation request has been superseded. Someone may want to check with the requestor, but I suggest we close this case. --Ideogram 14:24, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed - there isn't much to be gained in starting mediation now and if the ArbCom case is rejected, we can always re-open. Addhoc 20:50, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Compromise offers

This section is for listing and discussing compromise offers.

Discussion

While using the talk page of the article in question to solve a dispute is encouraged to involve a larger audience, feel free to discuss the case below if that is not possible. Other mediators are also encouraged to join in on the discussion as Wikipedia is based on consensus.

"Others were sanctioned by Islamic Fatwas by Islamic clerics based on their interpretation of Quranic verses."
They may have been sanctioned - Hkelkar is unable to prove the fatwas established the system, which is currently what's written in the article. BhaiSaab talk 18:59, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ah! The wonderful world of WP:NOR violation above. Wikipedia is about WP:V and all of my edits are scholarly and verifiable per WP:RS. Some of Terry's edits are verifiable (most are from unreliable sources or misquoted/mis-cited from reliable sources as I see it). I have no objection to him putting the adequately sourced parts of his perspective, However,Terry wants to go Ahmadinejad on my edits and censor them altogether. He refuses to admit even the possibility that some scholars assert that the Muslim Caste System was promulgated by the interpretation of Quranic scripture and not a Hindu xerox copy (see my refs to Habib's book on the islamic Caste System and the Research paper by Y.Sikand+ the works of Bhimrao Ambedkar I have cited). Terry responds by character assassinations of the authors and trying to divert the issue by some good-old-fashioned Hindu-bashing and conflating unrelated issues to try to color the perspective of viewers.
What I suggest is that the mediator judge ONLY the reliability and content of the sources and not the rhetoric and dialectic of users like Terry (or even that of mine if you feel that I am using rhetoric). If the mediator can bring himself to do that then dandy! I have had a decent experience with mediators (see my AMA mediation regarding Tipu Sultan where Terry tried to fire up some anti-Hindu sentiments and failed User:Martinp23/Desk/Archive/Three; also see his AfD nom on Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Anti-Hindu) and so am, as always, happy to follow the sacred WP:AGF with any mediator whjo bravely volunteers to resolve this hideous mess.Hkelkar 00:14, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Raking up past issues to influence future ones could possibly be treated as a bad practice..Kelkar, it is time you did away any historical baggage and take edits on Case by Case basis.Abstain from attacking the authors and their motives and focus on the article itselfTerryJ-Ho 00:51, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
We are not discussing Hindus here. We're discussing Muslims.Hkelkar 00:50, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You wrote your responses to my initial comment "The article is about Indian Caste System and as per the prevalance and history it should include a major portion on the development of Hindu caste system and its religious validity".Basically we are studying the article caste system in India and my point is that you are underplaying some elements and overplaying others and affecting the article by doing so.TerryJ-Ho 00:55, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ahmadinejad is awesome. BhaiSaab talk 00:43, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I find the actions on the part of the Muslim Guild disconcerting. Also, bringing up past actions for the sake of context is perfectly fine, especially rabid deletionism and historical whitewashing.Bakaman Bakatalk 04:06, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Considering your past with Hkelkar, you're naturally inclined to support him no matter what. BhaiSaab talk 04:08, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not acting like a third-party am I? Its no secret who I sympathize with, unlike the cabals that operate on wiki.Bakaman Bakatalk 04:09, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Great conspiracy theory. BhaiSaab talk 04:12, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Another violation of WP:AGF by Bakaman.Mixing editorial issues and assigning nefarious motives to other users continuously does not help,TerryJ-Ho 07:24, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Category