What is this dispute about? What sections, sentences, or issues in the article(s) can you not agree on? If you are the editor who opened this request, list these issues to be mediated under "Primary issues". If you did not open this request, you can add additional issues to be mediated under "Additional issues". The issues to be mediated would be properly agreed upon later, if this request for mediation is accepted.
Primary issues (added by the filing party)
Reversion: Why are you citing stuff from the 1800s? / DNA/genetics are not acceptable for this article / Please do not use WP:PRIMARY sources; discuss WP:LEAD changes on the talk page first and obtain consensus. (TW))
If you are a named party, please sign below and indicate whether you agree or refuse to participate in mediation. Remember that all editors are obliged to resolve disputes about content through discussion, mediation, or other similar means. If you do not wish to participate in mediation, you must arrange another form of dispute resolution. Comments and questions should be made underneath the numbered list below, to avoid confusion.
Disagree. This is highly premature. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:19, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree. Maybe opening an WP:RFC would be solution so that new consensus can be held for not using very old sources or not including genetic studies in caste articles. Capitals00 (talk) 13:14, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This section should only be edited by a mediator. The Mediation Committee's representative will indicate in due course whether the request is accepted (meaning a mediator will be assigned) or rejected (meaning you will have to try a different type of dispute resolution). If the mediator asks you a question in this section, you may edit here.
Reject. With two "disagrees" cannot satisfy prerequisite to mediation #5, "A majority of the parties to the dispute consent to mediation." For the Mediation Committee, TransporterMan (TALK) 16:32, 29 November 2017 (UTC) (Chairperson)[reply]
