Talk:Yoruba people/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Etymology Dispute and consensus

@Oluwatalisman, I am opening this new section to enable this dispute start afresh so as to break free from the pitfalls occasioned by your repeated violations of relevant Wikipedia rules and policies regarding conduct between editors, starting from the very beginning of the dispute up to the Administrator's notice board. Please find below the version you edited[1] in violation of (WP:ONUS), (WP:NPOV and WP:NOR) which triggered the dispute in the first place. You will also find below that a proposed version for your input

As an ethnic description, the word "Yoruba" (or more correctly "Yaraba") was originally in reference to the Oyo Empire and is the usual Hausa name for Oyo people as noted by Hugh Clapperton and Richard Lander. It was therefore popularized by Hausa usage and ethnography written in Ajami during the 19th century by Sultan Muhammad Bello. The extension of the term by Europeans to all speakers of dialects related to the language of the Oyo (in modern terminology North-West Yoruba) dates to the second half of the 19th century. In the diaspora, other nomenclatures for the entire ethnolinguistic group such as Akú, Nago, and Lacumi can be found (Nago in Benin Republic, Brazil, and Jamaica; Aku in Sierra Leone Krio language and Lacumi in Cuba.)
The native term the Yoruba people call themselves, is "Ọmọ Káàárọ̀-oòjíire," literally meaning, "The People who ask ‘Good morning, did you wake up well?" This is in reference to the culture of greeting in the Yoruba culture, whom are known for their many different greetings in many situations. Another term used is, "Ọmọ Oòduà," meaning "Children of Oduduwa," referencing the semi-legendary king who is believed to be the founder and ancestor of the modern Yoruba people.Yorùbá Nation

in light of available and herewith cited sources, i would like to propose the following for discussions:

As an ethnic description, the word "Yoruba"("Yaraba/Yarriba") was originally in reference to Oyo Empire and is the usual Hausa name for Oyo people as noted by Hugh Clapperton and Richard Lander.[2], Sir Richard Francis Burton [3] and Maureen Warner-Lewis[4]. It was therefore popularized by Hausa usage[5] as well as the earliest written history of the Yoruba in Ajami during the 19th century by Sultan Muhammad Bello[6]. The extension of the term by Europeans to all speakers of dialects related to the language of the Oyo (in modern terminology North-West Yoruba) dates to the second half of the 19th century. In the diaspora, other nomenclatures for the entire ethnolinguistic group such as Akú, Nago, and Lacumi can be found (Nago in Benin Republic, Brazil, and Jamaica; Aku in Sierra Leone Krio language and Lacumi in Cuba.[7]
Attempts at identifying the origin of the name and Yoruba people themselves have been made by scholars in various times, starting with Sultan Muhammadu Bello's Infakul Maisuri, in which he detailed the Yoruba Muslim version[8][9], as well as Mr Bowen and a host of other theories, with the most popular derivation being from "Ori Obba" or "Head King"[10]
Oramfe, MJL please take note.
Thank you and i hope we all behave ourselves here and keep it short and to the point. Ppdallo (talk) 14:56, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

• The only first hand account and original research from the reflist is that of Clapperton, and what it states is that Eyeo was called "Yarriba" (Not Yaraba) by Arabs and people of Houssa. All other second and even third hand sources from Nigerian tabloids (guardian) and statements by people like Fani Kayode are not original works.
• Secondly, the name was not an ethnic description if we go by what the reference states, but rather what they (Arabs and Houssas (sic)) called an Oyo district.
• Thirdly, the reference never says the Hausas were the source of the name ... the only fact being expressly stated was that the Arabs and Houssa (sic) called Oyo "Yarriba". To make this even clearer, the equivalent of this would be; e.g A Portuguese explorer reporting that the Yoruba people called the Hausa people Gambari/Kambari which might be right, but that doesn't validate the word as being of Yoruba origin.
• Fourthly, nowhere in that reference did it state that the term was "popularized" by Hausa usage or ethnography by Mohammed Bello (Not even close). As a matter of fact, it was Europeans/Returnee/creole people that extended the term over the rest of the Yoruba people. .
• And lastly, nowhere in Clapperton/Lander/Denham's works was that term attributed or said to be of an Hausa origin.
• - The version you are trying to revert back to is very wrong and will require a lot of correctional work from myself as well as others.
• With that being said, if you want to refer to Clapperton travels as ref, it would be best you quote exactly what is written therein and not make up all the other 'extras'. That will be my response to you for the time being, pending the verdict concerning you is being reached on the administrator board and the case is eventually closed by MJL. Ppdallo, User:Talisman-white, Oramfe (talk) 02:59, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

Oramfe: For Wikipedia sourcing, secondary sources, not primary sources, are the recommended variety. WP:SCHOLARSHIP: "Articles should rely on secondary sources whenever possible." Why are you discounting Maureen Warner-Lewis, who, in the cited source, wrote "The term Yoruba was in fact borrowed from the Hausa exonym Yarba – Yaraba"?

Oramfe, please take note of the above response to your submission above. Ppdallo (talk) 08:10, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

Then you would simply have to state she was the one who was of that opinion. The part would have to be rephrased as an indirect statement and can not be written in Wikipedia voice... i.e Maureen Warner-Lewis,1997 on her part, thinks that or 'was of the opinion that'; the terminology Yoruba is .-.-.. so and so. Which again, means you are expressing an independent researcher's POV and as such can not state such like it is fact. Refer to Wikipedia's WP:YESPOV which states that "Assertions can not be stated as facts, and that if different sources make separate assertions about a matter, they should be treated as opinions rather than facts, and should not present as direct statements." You can see how I have reported the differing opinions of various foreign scholars who had their opinions about how the name Yoruba came to be in the part under #Name. Also check out: Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Point of view

Finally, (If and when you do the reversion), I will be there to add the part that her opinions are unfounded in Yoruba traditions and she relied on external sources which she never cross-referenced nor made inline citations (WP:INLINECITE) about- and as such that part of her book can be adjudged insufficient. Which again, I will be there to add. And finally, as might be obvious to you now, the parts about Sultan Bello, Ajami, "Popularized by Hausa usage" Etc would have to move into the trash bin as unfounded opinions by you Ppdallo. Oramfe (talk) 10:36, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

Oramfe Please do not disparage such an eminent scholar. Read about her here Maureen Warner-Lewis. Her research works is first hand, which makes her an authority on this subject. That is because she lived among the Yoruba for over a decade during which time she learned the Yoruba language and was at University of Ife for her PhD research on Yoruba Language.

On the issue of "popularized by Hausa usage" you can check the source[11]. It is a highly reputable Nigerian news paper and can be used as reliable source. Anyways, why dont you give us the version you think will be in compliance with Wikipedia relevant policies so we can learn from you? Ppdallo (talk) 11:32, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

User:Oramfe, if you have supplied sources that are also reliable with views that conflict with Warner-Lewis's then you're correct. In that case, no assertion stated as a matter of fact should be made but, rather, alternative hypotheses should be given.

However, if the situation were that Warner-Lewis's statement was the only view found in a reliable source, and your sole source of disagreement is based on that view being "unfounded in Yoruba tradition", then it would be entirely correct to state her view in the article in Wikipedia voice as a factual assertion. After all, Solar eclipse begins "A solar eclipse occurs when a portion of the Earth is engulfed in a shadow cast by the Moon which fully or partially blocks sunlight." It doesn't say "According to X and Y, a solar eclipse occurs .... However, XYZ tradition holds that a dragon is eating the sun a bite at a time and then regurgitating it." (I think it was Chinese tradition but I wasn't sure, and I don't know whether I'm not expressing the tradition properly, so I wrote "XYZ" instead.)

Regarding your remark about inline sources within cited sources, we have perhaps billions of citations on Wikipedia to secondary sources that don't themselves inline their primary sources. Why would this one source be disqualified on that account?

User:Ppdallo, do you think possibly that Oramfe can follow a conversation without help? Largoplazo (talk) 11:51, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

Largoplazo Let's give him a try, sir :) Ppdallo (talk) 12:19, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

User:Ppdallo How have I disparaged the source of the reference when all I have stated was that she didn't cross reference nor make any inline annotations on what she wrote? If she is making a declarative statement, then on what works is she basing her opinion on? She didn't quote a single source, not even Denham/Lander/Clapperton. If she lived amongst Yoruba people, did she state in her work that what she wrote was conveyed to her by the Yoruba people amongst whom she lived? Interestingly, all other remarks she made in the same section are cross referenced to other authors.researchers/scholars. On to the second part of what you deemed a reliable source... which was a tabloid by Femi Fani Kayode who was simply stating an opinion on a subject matter which he isn't an expert on, and as published by the Guardian News... I am sorry but this would not be considered admissible? How can Hausa usage and 19th century Ajami works popularize a term already in use by both Yoruba people and Europeans before then? If you go through said article, you would notice the use of language like "It was said that" .... Said by whom, when and where? Which Ajami work? Was it infakul Maisuri by Bello or the Kano Chronicles or which?

To the other portions of your reply, again, read what WP:YESPOV states: "Avoid stating opinions as facts. Usually, articles will contain information about the significant opinions that have been expressed about their subjects. However, these opinions should not be stated in Wikipedia's voice. Rather, they should be attributed in the text to particular sources, or where justified, described as widespread views, etc. For example, an article should not state that "genocide is an evil action", but it may state that "genocide has been described by John So-and-so as the epitome of human evil."... which again goes directly back to what I had written in my reply that the opinion (especially an unreferenced one at that) should not be stated as fact nor in wikipedia voice....

User:Largoplazo Yes, I have stated sources which antagonize Warner-Lewis's view that the term was of Hausa origin in its most original form for example Burton's works [12] of the 1800's. Other opinions (Just like warner's) are also referenced [13] So, her view is not the only one found in a reliable, or even historical source. It also precedes Warner-Lewis's by decades. Surely if someone is writing on an ethnohistoric subject matter in a period as late as 1997 then they would reference to back it up which she didn't do. So once again, if we must fall back on her work, they we will have to report that she was the one who said so.

Oh yes, I am following the conversation, except that User:Ppdallo is adding some new content which wasn't in his original posts after I post replies, which then means the stream of discussion is looking incoherent because editing a posts someone already replied to can entirely change discussion trajectories.and make it look like the replying party is not addressing points being raisedOramfe (talk) 13:00, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

Oramfe please don't start an allegation against me. Check the edit history and tell me where i added content after you post replies. For your information, Guardian is not a tabloid news paper and the article was written by a History lecturer ( Sesan Michael Johnson) and not Femi fani Kayode. On the issue of usage of the name, Europeans did not start using the name until after people like clapperton had made reports on their expedition, by which time Muhammadu Bello had written with that name.
Please just give us your version. Ppdallo (talk) 13:30, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

User:Ppdallo, You have not addressed issues raised about the sources, and the remarks by Sesan Johnson on The Guardian. If the Guardian is not a tabloid like you say, all well and good... But a news paper is not an authority on history, so what exactly is the use? Sesan Michael Johnson was the one who made the remark, and he was wrong, because the word Yoruba was already in use in the Atlantic world before those Ajami works he was referring to including the ethnography written by Sultan Bello in 1837. The Trinidad slave census of 1813 for example already notes presence of people known as Yoruba... which even precedes clapperton's travels of the 1830s! And so, the use of this ethnic term also existed in the Yoruba Atlantic diaspora. Besides, this is also a newspaper/writer that can not differentiate between the 16th and 17th centuries. Ahmed Baba's work was in the 17th century not 16th as reported by the 'reputable paper' or professor.

since you have asked for my input, here is my input on the etymology subsection in light of current situation.

As an ethnic description, the word Yoruba has been ascribed to various sources. Clapperton and Lander noted that the geographical district of Eyeo was called Yarriba" by the Arabs and Houssa.[14] R.F Burton re-echoed Clapperton and remarked that it was an Hausa pronunciation[88]. The extension of the term to all speakers of dialects related to the dialect of the Oyo dates to early 19th century works by Europeans and creolized Yoruba christian missionaries. John Raban’s 1830 book titled The Vocabulary of the Eyo, or Aku, a Dialect of West Africa was the first to extend the use of the term to all the people identified today as Yoruba. In 1843 Samuel Ajayi Crowther built on his work and published a dictionary of the Yoruba language. [15] In the diaspora, other nomenclatures for the entire ethnolinguistic group such as Akú, Nago, and Lucumi can be found (Nago in Brazil, and Jamaica; Aku in Sierra Leone and Lucumi in Cuba.[92]

Short and simple. No dilly dallying. I removed some parts as you can see such as "was therefore popularized by Hausa usage" which remains an unreferenced or false statement. I also removed the part where you stated that Bello detailed the "Yoruba Muslim version".. where did you get that from? Also I notice that you are restating some ports from the subsection now titled #Name. What is the end goal? If you have any questions, shoot. Oramfe (talk) 15:17, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

Oramfe Plese do not expunge any of the sources because they are all relevant. On the issue of Ahmad Baba, you should realize that he was not an Arab but a Berber and he wrote in Ajami [16] from Timbuktu, which was the center of scholarship for Sahel West Africa and that Hausa people were among Ajami writers[17]. So it is still in the same circle of information and knowledge sharing. The word Yoruba/yaraba was in use even before Ahmad Baba and still remain unproven that it is not from Hausa usage and term. Ppdallo (talk) 16:10, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

Ppdallo Again, because something is said somewhere does not make it a reliable source, I am sure you know that. The newspaper material you quoted is full of contradictions, multiple errors and erroneous assertions. It also uses uncertain language. If it was a wikipedia article, it would have been flagged for multiple issues. How can you possible claim that as your backup source?

Yes, Ahmed baaba was a Berber but who also spoke Arabic. As a matter of fact, he was an Arabic grammarian of repute. And his work concerning the Yoruba and neighboring West Africans was in Arabic as original language, not Ajami.[18] You are about to start another unfounded claim by trying to link Hausa input into Ahmed Baba's work (again without proof) which is a very peculiar argument because at least 8 other groups bordering the Yorubas were also listed.. You were the same person who made this remark a while ago- "The name "Yoruba" is derived from the Hausa word "Ya raba" or "Yaraba" and officially pronounced to Clapperton by Sultan Muhammad Bello and also in his ethnography written in the 1800's and not NO Ahmed Baba of Songhai. What does Ahmed Baba know about the Yoruba people and a Hausa word "Ya raba"??????! ANYBODY WANNA DISCUSS THIS?". Now you have accepted Ahmed baba's work as the oldest - but then, you are now trying to tie it to Ajami and Hausa scholarship through conjecturing? I don't know what was the point of your last statement. My reply to you already acknowledged prominent previous writers who acknowledged the Hausa use of the term in reference to Oyo (Clapperton and Burton). So of course the important section on name is staying, as a matter of fact it is very important given its historical weight as well as the final verdict of Burton on the name itself. What else? Oramfe (talk) 17:21, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

Oramfe Just concentrate on the version we are discussing. You have expunged too many of the sources there and the ones you have provided are either broken or do not support your claim. Ppdallo (talk) 17:43, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

User:PpdalloHow am I not concentrating on "the version we are discussing"? You were the one who was trying to bring up a false narrative on the issue of Ahmed Baba, and I replied you. You asked for my input, I gave it. You replied, asking me "Not to expunge any of the sources because they are all relevant". And then I have to ask you, how are they all relevant if they are problematic unreliable sources? ... Do you think everything you see online makes a credible source simply because it has something you want to use to push your opinion irregardless of any issues that come with such sources? How is a half baked article on a Nigerian newspaper a scholarly or vetted source? And that was exactly why all the unfounded statements in the version you are trying to come up with had to go. I thought you were asking for my input to reach the consensus, or aren't you?, the goal should be to reach a decision. User User:Talisman-white's table even addresses some of the portions I removed. He might want to chip in a thing or two as well. Oramfe (talk) 17:55, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

Ppdallo what you've added is from a Columnist section. See https://guardian.ng/category/opinion/columnists/ to see where the article falls under

Your new source:

      "Extant records had reiterated that the word “Yoruba” was first recorded in reference to the Oyo Empire in a treatise written by the 16th century Songhai scholar Ahmed Baba. It was said that it was later popularized by Hausa usage and treatises written in Arabic and Ajami during the 19th century." [19]

Wikipedia:

      "As an ethnic description, the word "Yoruba" was first recorded in reference to the Oyo Empire in a treatise written by the 16th century Songhai scholar Ahmed Baba. It was popularized by Hausa usage[25] and ethnography written in Arabic and Ajami during the 19th century..." [20]

Sorry

-Oluwatalisman (talk) 11:19, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

@OluwatalismanThe date of that article was 07 November, 2019 while the wikipedia article was standing as far back as November,2018[21]. Are you really serious with this issue?Ppdallo (talk) 12:13, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

Ppdallo Is this your opinion that the columnist could not have utilized a version much earlier than the article's actual publication date? Is that really your opinion? -Oluwatalisman (talk) 12:36, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

@Talisman-white: What you have identified here is called citogenesis. It is very compelling evidence that the sourced fact should not be considered reliable in this exact instance. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 17:42, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the link to that article, @MJL. That was incredibly interesting to read about! -Oluwatalisman (talk) 23:12, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

Ppdallo There is no repeated violation on my part. It is on yours [22]. The version you have pasted [23] is an old version you have resurrected in order to deconstruct for your purposes and it is not a proposed version for my input but the sum of editors' inputs to that point, including mine. The current one is here [24] and it should be your reference for this topic.

Now, see the following table:

Issue reference #	Claim	Primary Source	Secondary Source	Tertiary Source	Violation of WP:NOR	By	Violation of WP:NPOV	Resolve
1	"Yoruba" is a Hausa word/name				Yes	Ppdallo	Yes as evidenced here	Unsupported
1b	"Yoruba" is, instead, a derivative of a Hausa word/name		Kamari Clarke [25] Atlantic Yoruba Diaspora [26] Anthropologica 2002		No	Talisman-white		Supported
1c	"Yaraba", "Yarba", "Yarriba" are Hausa words/pronounciations for "Yoruba" as a differentiable term	Yoruba Vocabulary [27]	Yoruba Nation [28]		No	Talisman-white		Supported
1d	The word "Yoruba" is a conscious Yoruba re-signification of a previous Hausa appellation		Kamari Clarke [29]		No	Talisman-white		Supported
2	"Yoruba" is a Yoruba word/name			Webster's dictionary [30]	No	Talisman-white		Supported
3	Hugh Clapperton noted that "Yoruba" is a usual Hausa name				Yes	Ppdallo	Yes as evidenced here	Unsupported
4	Hugh Clapperton noted that "Yarriba" is a usual Hausa name	Journal of Expedition [31]			No	Neither		Supported
5	"Yoruba" was popularized by Hausa usage				Yes	Ppdallo	Yes as evidenced here	Unsupported
6	"Yoruba" was popularized by Ajami				Yes	Ppdallo		Unsupported
7	"Yoruba" was popularized by Ajami by Mohammed Bello				Yes	Ppdallo		Unsupported
8	"Yoruba" was popularized by European Missionary intervention and schooling		Trinidad Yoruba [32] Secondary Source II [33]	Yoruba Encyclopedia [34]	No	Talisman-white		Supported
9	"Yoruba" was extended to only North-west Yoruba dialects				Yes	Ppdallo		Unsupported
10	"Yoruba" was extended to all members of the linguistic Yoruba group		Trinidad Yoruba [35]		No	Talisman-wihte		Supported
11	Mohammed Bello detailed the Yoruba muslim version in Infakul Maisuri				Yes	Ppdallo		Unsupported
			New points below. See changes
12	"Yoruba" was originally a Hausa word/designation/term	[36]	[37][38][39]			Ppdallo
13	Originally/traditionally in reference to Oyo people	[40]	[41][42][43][44]			Both
14	"Yoruba" was popularized by Hausa usage		[45][46][47]			Ppdallo
15	"Yoruba" was apparently propagated and popularized by the earliest written history of the Yoruba in Ajami by Sultan Muhammad Bello as well as Ahmad Baba al-Timbukti's mention of it in his manuscript	[48][49]	[50]			Ppdallo
16	Mohammad Bello detailed a version that bears striking resemblance to the Yoruba Muslim's version in his book "Infakul Maisuri"		[51][52]			Ppdallo

I will be back -Oluwatalisman (talk) 13:48, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

@Oluwatalisman You are already dictating how this dispute should be run. Anyways, your table does not actually reflect the "current" version as you referred to it. Your current version[53] is as below and is not what is in your table above:

"As an ethnic description, the word "Yoruba" has roots in a term borrowed by Europeans in the earlier part of the 19th century and incorporated into usage in reference to the Oyo Empire of the time. In his book, Hugh Clapperton began to subject the word to early changes in its evolution from the existing Hausa exonym Yaraba, to "Yourriba" as was his customary way of addressing the King of Oyo. Further evolution of the ethnic description to the larger ethnolinguistic group of which Oyo is a part is the subsequent work of 19th century missionaries who categorized all members of the ethnolinguistic group by "Yoruba" and helped incorporate it into the language of the Oyo people as their own self-definition. Competing terms such as Nago, Lucumi, and Aku, used in identifying Oyo's ethnolinguistic family, have not reached the same level of popular usage as the term "Yoruba" though widely used in areas where ethnic sub-populations themselves can be found.
In comparison, the term of intraethnolinguistic origin which the Yoruba people have called themselves, is "Ọmọ Káàárọ̀-oòjíire", literally meaning, "The People who ask ‘Good morning, did you wake up well?" This is in reference to the culture of greetings identifiable within the Yoruba culture. Through parts of coastal West Africa, where Yorubas have been found, they have carried their culture of lauding one another with greetings of different forms, applicable in different situations, along with them. Another term used is, "Ọmọ Oòduà", meaning "The Children of Oduduwa", referencing the semi-legendary king who is believed to be the founder and ancestor of the modern Yoruba people."

Below was the standing version you edited[54] and is also not well represented in the table :
"As an ethnic description, the word "Yoruba" (or more correctly "Yaraba") was originally in reference to the Oyo Empire and is the usual Hausa name for Oyo people as noted by Hugh Clapperton and Richard Lander. It was therefore popularized by Hausa usage and ethnography written in Ajami during the 19th century by Sultan Muhammad Bello. The extension of the term by Europeans to all speakers of dialects related to the language of the Oyo (in modern terminology North-West Yoruba) dates to the second half of the 19th century. In the diaspora, other nomenclatures for the entire ethnolinguistic group such as Akú, Nago, and Lacumi can be found (Nago in Benin Republic, Brazil, and Jamaica; Aku in Sierra Leone Krio language and Lacumi in Cuba.)
The native term the Yoruba people call themselves, is "Ọmọ Káàárọ̀-oòjíire," literally meaning, "The People who ask ‘Good morning, did you wake up well?" This is in reference to the culture of greeting in the Yoruba culture, whom are known for their many different greetings in many situations. Another term used is, "Ọmọ Oòduà," meaning "Children of Oduduwa," referencing the semi-legendary king who is believed to be the founder and ancestor of the modern Yoruba people.Yorùbá Nation"
Please reflect both these two versions in the table so we can have a proper comparison. There is a new version i proposed to you in the top part of this section and you are yet to respond to it Ppdallo (talk) 11:56, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

Ppdallo Are you sure I am the one dictating how this dispute should be run??? The only thing in the table that is not in the current version is the tertiary source asserting that "Yoruba" is a Yoruba word. I can let you do the honor of adding that into the paragraph if you want to in pursuit of a more clearly forward and amicable resolution. Note that the entry and the other one under the column Primary Source are valid to this topic -- the only thing I promised to use the table in representation of. You will add the dictionary reference to the section if you are truly interested in improving Wikipedia X) Thanks -Oluwatalisman (talk) 12:56, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

@Oluwatalisman How about me designing my own table analysis of your current version(of course using your format) and you doing the same with my version in your table? I think it will give a better picture of each side of the discussions? Ppdallo (talk) 17:16, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

@Ppdallo Can you append 3 new columns at the end of the current table? Name the first Ppdallo, title the second Talisman-white, and title the third Resolve. Use the first of the three to document your one word response, on each of its rows, to the content before it (e.g. 'Agree', 'Disagree'). Leave the second column blank, and leave the last column for another time. Add extra claims at the bottom of the table, by rows, and use their columns according to the current model. -Oluwatalisman (talk) 22:56, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

@ Oluwatalisman I do not agree with the content of your table. I have already told you that in my earlier reply to you just below your table analysis, that it does not reflect your current version[55] under dispute nor does it reflect the version you edited from[56]. Let's each of us have their own separate table analysis of the others' claim using similar format. Ppdallo (talk) 09:25, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

User:Ppdallo I am honestly trying to understand how or why you do not agree with the table's contents. The table actually addressed every point in the version you are proposing as an update to the etymology in your original post on which you also called for input[57] and has done a good job at laying out all the points bare. Oramfe (talk) 10:35, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

@Oluwatalisman Please check my last edit of Yoruba people page here with time stamp 14:40, 10 september 2021 [58] where i undid revision by Oramfe. Just scroll down to the etymology section and you will find that it is the same as the one you edited here time stamp 07: 45, 12 September 2021[59]. That was the first ever edit you made of that section and it was in violation of (WP:ONUS) and this was what Snow Rise said about your edit war with me even though i had earlier reminded you of normal procedure of editing a standing content here[60] "As a final note, to touch upon some procedural matters pertaining to the disputes above: Talisman-white, your comments to Ppdallo ("The reversion of the work of a fellow contributor was your initiation. The discussion should have been and should be initiated by you. Do not revert a 3rd time.") suggest you need to read WP:BRD: if Ppdallo was reverting you or another editor in the case of a relatively recent addition, then the normal process expected by policy here is that the person advocating for the inclusion of that content bears the burden (WP:ONUS) of securing consensus for the change (That said, to reflect the deep importance of avoiding violations of WP:EW, whatever the standing version with regard to the disputed content that is standing now should be preserved until the RfCs resolve.)"[61]
As a mark of respect for Snow Rise, being a more experienced editor, i tried to reach concensus with you, but instead and in violation of all relevant Wikipedia rules and policies guiding conduct between editors, you went into tirades of Islamophobic and hate statements which ended up complicating the whole discussions, details of which can be found here [62]. I then opened 3 RFCs [63][64][65], all expired now. You still went ahead and confused everything here[66] which forced me to seek comments from Neutral point of view/Noticeboard where i received an advice and went ahead to notify you here[67] which ended up in the same type of confusion due to you manner of discussions. To cap it all, MJL joined the discussions and ultimately decided to selectively report my conduct here[68], leaving out you and Oramfe. Despite that, i tried to explain myself but when you still went ahead and called me (Vicious) right on Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents that was when i realized something was wrong. In order for me to be able to control myself, i had to take a break from the discussion and by the time i got back i discovered that the section had been taken down and i asked user:MJL here[69]why but stll did not get reply from him.
Realizing that you seem to have no respect for Wikipedia policies and guidelines, i informed you of my next step here[70] specifically asking you to note that your repeated violations of all relevant Wikipedia rules and policies even right up at the administrator's noticeboard no longer puts you in any position to enjoy the benefit of the doubt suggested by user: Snow Rise, for violating (WP:ONUS)in the first place. That was why opened this new section and as soon as the protection on Yoruba People page is lifted i will go ahead and enforce (WP:ONUS) by reverting the Etymology section to just before you illegally made drastic edit on it, pending our resolution of the dispute in this new section. Now here you are again. Ppdallo (talk) 15:51, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

@Ppdallo: The purpose of this discussion has to be to reach consensus before any changes are made. Your statement just above demonstrates that you have no intention to concern yourself with whether you achieve consensus here, but that you plan to go ahead and engage, after protection is lifted, in exactly the sort of non-consensus behavior that led to it being protected in the first place. How do you see that ending? Without consensus, do you imagine that everyone will stand down and allow your version to stand based on your unilateral sense of rightness? I anticipate another edit war, and I anticipate that that will lead to indefinite page protection, at least until such time as some ANI discussion or other leads to at least one of you being banned or blocked.

I don't know which, if any, of you is right about any of this, either the factual matter or the accusations of misbehavior, but I take strong issue with your latest remark about your intent to control the content of the page without a consensus obtained somewhere, whether here or, if that doesn't happen, in an administrative setting where others can reach resolution on procedural matters as well as substantive ones. In your own interest, you had best, in my opinion and based on my observations, replace your dictatorial approach with a resolution-seeking one. Largoplazo (talk) 16:26, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

Largoplazo Thanks for your contribution. I am not trying to be dictatorial here.Just read my account, in my reply to Talisman, of what led me to that decision. Essentially, in my humble opinion, it is clear that Talisman had repeatedly violated wikipedia policies concerning this issue. I think the maxim :Going to equity should go with clean hands should apply here because the whole discussion is standing upon Talisman violation of (WP:ONUS) in the first place. Do you think it will augur well for Wikipedia project if editors are allowed to breach such an important policy while deliberately creating confusion with seeming intent to create a stalemate? I am just of the humble opinion that if (WP:ONUS) is allowed to prevail in this case all involved parties would sit up and reach a consensus.Ppdallo (talk) 16:56, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

Your statement was dictatorial, trying or not. I realize how very, very, very, very, very strongly you hold your opinion. I also realize there is disagreement about its implications in this situation, and numerous people are involved in discussing it. So nothing is resolved until it's resolved, and the article should then reflect that resolution. Your declaration that you will make it read the way you want it to and that's all there is to the story is contrary to that. Largoplazo (talk) 16:59, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

Largoplazo i am really confused here. You can see me asking Oramfe for his version to be able to reach a concensus? He even provided it and I have passed my observation back to him. How does that make me very, very, very, very, very strongly hold an opinion? Ppdallo (talk) 17:12, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

@Ppdallo: Is it your impression that you can't be spoken to about one thing you wrote if you've also written other things? I spoke very directly and specifically about the comment you had made immediately above my response to it. That is dictatorial. If you really don't remember it, you wrote That was why opened this new section and as soon as the protection on Yoruba People page is lifted i will go ahead and enforce (WP:ONUS) by reverting the Etymology section to just before you illegally made drastic edit on it, pending our resolution of the dispute in this new section. Yes, you did include "pending our resolution of the dispute", but what you wrote before it immediately contradicted that, as you said, not that you would edit the article to read as agreed on in the resolution, but that you would do it, in other terms, as you see fit, per your opinion of another's contributions. Largoplazo (talk) 19:39, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

Ppdallo, I think it's worth considering a rather central caveat I attached to my commentary about WP:ONUS: "...the normal process expected by policy here is that the person advocating for the inclusion of that content bears the burden (WP:ONUS) of securing consensus for the change (That said, to reflect the deep importance of avoiding violations of WP:EW, whatever the standing version with regard to the disputed content that is standing now should be preserved until the RfCs resolve.)[emphasis added]. Now, I will grant you that I didn't appropriately future proof that statement by providing for the possibility of a no-consensus result (which is an obvious oversight in retrospect when I consider the fact that I was commenting upon the shortcomings of the RfC cluster and the forgoing discussion in terms of clarity). I could have said "until there is consensus", but I doubt you would have been content to sit still for that even if I had: I suspect you would feel that is unreasonable, and want the benefit conferred by WP:ONUS sooner rather than later (based on your repeated plastering of the policy in every discussion attached to this dispute since I first mentioned it).

And to be fair, it is a grey policy/behavioural area, the question of how long you have to wait after a non-consensus discussion to restore and older version, when you originally stopped asserting your preferred version because of edit war concerns. But I can tell you, it is definitely a bad look when you make it clear that you plan to leap into action trying to enforce your preferred version the instant page protection ends. That telegraphs that the very issues which necessitated the protection remain a concern, and trust me, it just doesn't advance your case longterm to look like you are just manuevering around administrative steps to bring some order to the situation. I am finally getting a sense that this mess may be resolvable in large part because of Talisman-white's current approach: that table is a very elegant solution to de-muddying the waters of the previous entangled and difficult to follow discussion. I haven't had the time yet to go through it in detail to provide my delayed feedback on the content questions themselves, but now at least the positions (or at least TW's) and the proffered sourcing are much more clear. I really mean it Talisman-white: I may just have to link back to this discussion in some future RfC some day that has gotten off to a confusing start: thank you for taking the time to organize/summarize the dispute. I will say that some of the columns are a tiny bit pointy, but at least I now know exactly what you are advocating and what you feel are the sufficiencies or deficiencies in sourcing.

Anyway, I do think there is some hope for some consensus here, though I do think it's going to take some more time. I would advise no one rush to make any drastic changes just as discussion is finally getting on track (if for no other reason than the impact that cna have on how other editors perceive your argument on the longer time schedule. Be the tortoise not the hare. Actually, be the bridge builder, if possible, but when you just can't see agreement as feasible, a more measured approach will serve you better not just by avoiding edit warring, but also by demonstrating you are confident enough in your interpretation to not feel the need to immediately enforce it as soon as technicality (maybe) allows for it. That's my best advice here. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 04:33, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

@SnowRise Thanks for your contribution. I agree with your advice and i too, see hope for consensus here as well.Ppdallo (talk) 12:20, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for the kind compliments @SnowRise -Oluwatalisman (talk) 06:10, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

@Ppdallo Are you sure that anybody's first edit to a section is a WP:ONUS violation [71], is illegal? "avoiding violations of WP:EW" -- are you sure that this counts as an allegation of me edit warring with you? Is [72] really evidence for Islamophobic and hate statements... complicating the whole discussions following you trying to reach consensus with me as a mark of respect for Snow Rise when it preceded your creation of the RFCs altogether? I bore the confusion here [73]? What is my manner of discussion which leads to it? Are you sure I called you vicious on the Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents? Are you sure that I have no respect for Wikipedia policies and guidelines? Are you sure [74] culminates in informing me of the next steps? With regard to Now here you are again, did you start this section by tagging me? What do you consider I am here doing? -Oluwatalisman (talk) 06:01, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

Convenience break

I've reviewed all of the sources and claims made immediately above a couple of times now. I've added a reference number column to Talisman-white/Oluwatalisman's table above (I hope you don't mind, TW; I thought it would help reference back to it a little easier). My conclusions are as follows:

• Ppdallo, having looked at the claims of 8 and 10, and compared them against the proffered sources, I find that Talisman's read on this issues seems more or less supported, in the absence of further sourcing. Do you have additional sources that meet WP:RS standards which refute or modify those positions, beyond anything that I have to say in the next bulleted item below?

• On the flip side, Talisman, looking at issue 1, it seems to me that the Warner-Lewis source does support Ppdallo's position of a Hausa loanword origin of the ethnonym. Those two different angles on the origin do not seem particularly inter-contradictory to me and if we can't get at wording which all parties can agree with and which incoporates both the original geneological origin and the semantic expansion under colonial influence, then there is always the possbility of just leaning heavily on attributed statements. I will say this much: certainly the secondary source pulls much more weight here than a brief reference in a non-specialist English dictionary when it comes to the etiology of the term, so to the extent that the claims for 1 and 2 are perceived to be in conflict (and I'm not sure they should be), claim 1 is certainly much, much better sourced. Obviously the read on claim 5 folds into these issues as well, and I tend to read that as supported by the source in some sense, though I'm not sure that's the ideal way to phrase/frame the issue.

• On issue 4, the claim does not seem to me to be directly supported by the source listed in the table. That said, it seems as if maybe nobody seems to be pushing for the inclusion of this point, so this may be a non-issue? If there's a dispute here, I'll need to have the nature of the disagreement clarified before I can determine which editorial option I support.

• As to all the remaining issues (3, 6, 7, 9, and 11) I consider them presently unsupported by sourcing, but I'd be curious to see a (please, consise and orderly) list of the sources which Ppdallo thinks support these claims (and feel free to reword any claims to better fit what you are saying the sources claim, if need be).

Any thoughts on these observations? SnowRise ^{let's rap} 09:01, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

@SnowRise. Oluwatalisman's table is not a good representation of the contents under dispute. I told him that earlier in my response to the table that it did not reflect his current version[75] under dispute nor does it reflect the version he edited from[76]. I am yet to receive a response from him on that and now i have just suggested to him that each of us have their own separate table analysis of the others' version, using similar format to the one he designed. Ppdallo (talk) 10:33, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

@SnowRise Please note that i have no input in that table. That was all Oluwatalisman's redacted and mutilated versions.Ppdallo (talk) 10:53, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I am aware that the table reflects TW's read on the various disputes/issues, but I also followed the links in your response post immediately following the table. Ultimately I agreed with some of Talisman's positions and some of yours, as per the above comments. As to present/past versions, I don't see the value in getting bogged down in the edit history at this juncture: what we're talking about is how the article ought to read from here, so let's build that discussion from the bottom up. Based on Talisman's summary, and your responses I have indicated which enumerated claims I believe are supported by the sources presented thus far and which are not. On claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 8, and 10 I have provided my take on which statements are WP:VERIFIED and WP:DUE and which are not. If you disagree on my read, I'm all ears, but you will have to be more specific than just posting diffs and saying "this version is bad" or "this version is better". I think we can discuss more precise wording once we have a rough consensus on which claims should be included in principle, though you're welcome to make your own suggestions at any point. On issues 3, 6, 7, 9, and 11, I have not seen any evidence that these statements are supported by sourcing, and would need to know what RS you believe support these statements before I could consider changing my perspective. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 11:38, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

Indeed. your analysis and observations are apt. As a matter of fact, there is already acknowledgement (with references) of the probable Hausa links to the name, precisely the old colonial literature format of Yarribah based on available evidences (not forgetting the other theories of course). But the issue here seem to be Ppdallo wanting inclusion of all the other numbered (and unsupported) points to feature in the the etymology paragraph as well (citogenesis has been observed in the actual reference link[77] which contain most of the controversial listings which you've done well to number). Check out my submission in the Fifth block of the link [78] which in my opinion addresses all issues raised bar none. At this point, I believe there isn't really much of an 'issue' any longer, and all involved editors should focus on agreeing what the etymology section should read based on all agreed parameters and examined evidences. Oramfe (talk) 10:16, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

Well, I'm uncertain whether or not Ppdallo has further sources to submit regarding the presently unsupported claims. If none are forthcoming soon, I agree that the next logical step is to propose particular wording on the etymology of the ethnonym and glossonym, tighten it in response to any further concerns, and then consider !voting on the proposed wording if the consensus isn't already obvious and overwhelming. In principle I think there is fairly solid overlap between my present take and your own summary that you reference in your last diff. But let's see if Ppdallo has further sources to bring to bear, be they either presently unmentioned, or perhaps lost in the voluminous discussion above. If nothing further is added in terms of sourcing in the next day or so, I suggest parties begin to present proposed wording for the relevant paragraph(s). SnowRise ^{let's rap} 11:59, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

SnowRise I actually missed yours (As to all the remaining issues (3, 6, 7, 9, and 11) I consider them presently unsupported by sourcing, but I'd be curious to see a (please, consise and orderly) list of the sources which Ppdallo thinks support these claims (and feel free to reword any claims to better fit what you are saying the sources claim, if need be)) and that was because i have lately been and even presently quite busy, so will need a maximum of two days to do the rewording and provide the sources Ppdallo (talk) 15:02, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

SnowRise I think i am done rewording and rearranging my claims with currently available sources. Please note that I have cleared the "Violation" and "Resolve" columns so commenters/voters can type in yes/No/Supported where appropriate.Ppdallo (talk) 11:41, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

Hi Ppdallo I have separated the new entries for clarity. Please make sure they are still correct. -Oluwatalisman (talk) 12:43, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

Ppdallo Keep the changes in the discussion table completely parallel so we can finish this once and for all. None of your wording has changed. If any has been changed, provide a diff but please don't start a revert war over this table. If it really must be so, create another. -Oluwatalisman (talk) 15:24, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

Ppdallo, I've reverted your edits, and ask that you provide your own information in a separate post. Talisman's table is a part of a post authored by himself, and talk page guidelines are unambiguous that you are not permitted to change the content of another user's comment, particularly where they object; there are very few caveats to this principle and none of them apply here. This is a general rule of editing and commentary on Wikipedia and should always be respected, but your edits in this case were particularly problematic in that 1) your changing the table created situation wherein your arguments and the information you present might be attributed to Talisman, and 2) as the table had already been as it was for some time and the following discussion included multiple references back to the table as it read before your edits, your changes thus introduced implicit alteration of the responding posts as well. Your decision to alter another editor's post, while presumably a good faith decision, was a supremely bad idea, and edit warring to enforce those changes was even more ill-advised. Please present your own arguments in your own table (or in whatever format you prefer), and leave all previous discussion as it was. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 13:45, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

SnowRise I am really surprised at your edit summary here [79]. This was what you told me (As to all the remaining issues (3, 6, 7, 9, and 11) I consider them presently unsupported by sourcing, but I'd be curious to see a (please, consise and orderly) list of the sources which Ppdallo thinks support these claims (and feel free to reword any claims to better fit what you are saying the sources claim, if need be))[80] on line 893. and this was my reply to you [81] before i started work on the table. This was my feedback to you after i finished work on the table [82]. Remeber, I have earlier requested to design my own table here( How about me designing my own table analysis of your current version(of course using your format and you doing the same with my version in your table? I think it will give a better picture of each side of the discussions?)[83] and Talisman declined with this reply here Can you append 3 new columns at the end of the current table? Name the first Ppdallo, title the second Talisman-white, and title the third Resolve. Use the first of the three to document your one word response, on each of its rows, to the content before it (e.g. 'Agree', 'Disagree'). Leave the second column blank, and leave the last column for another time. Add extra claims at the bottom of the table, by rows, and use their columns according to the current model.[84]. What really is going on here? Why are you people readily blaming me anyhow. Please someone explain. Ppdallo (talk) 14:25, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

SnowRise I am just noticing something here (Yes, I am aware that the table reflects TW's read on the various disputes/issues, but I also followed the links in your response post immediately following the table. Ultimately I agreed with some of Talisman's positions and some of yours, as per the above comments. As to present/past versions, I don't see the value in getting bogged down in the edit history at this juncture: what we're talking about is how the article ought to read from here, so let's build that discussion from the bottom up. Based on Talisman's summary, and your responses I have indicated which enumerated claims I believe are supported by the sources presented thus far and which are not. On claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 8, and 10 I have provided my take on which statements are WP:VERIFIED and WP:DUE and which are not. If you disagree on my read, I'm all ears, but you will have to be more specific than just posting diffs and saying "this version is bad" or "this version is better". I think we can discuss more precise wording once we have a rough consensus on which claims should be included in principle, though you're welcome to make your own suggestions at any point. On issues 3, 6, 7, 9, and 11, I have not seen any evidence that these statements are supported by sourcing, and would need to know what RS you believe support these statements before I could consider changing my perspective.) It seems the the line i quoted above, in your response to me has been altered. Why? please i need to know.Ppdallo (talk) 15:44, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

Ppdallo Let me explain. Separating your rewording into another section of the same table does stop your contribution from being a rewording. There is no excuse to remanipulate the content of another editor by reverting the separated entry back into the other editor's wording and persistently demanding it be accepted. There is no contradiction between what was suggested to you (a potential rewording) being maintained in different section, and what you have been admonished of above. The fact that you reverted it persistently and resolutely implies that your point of contention was not your reworded text, as it existed regardless of placement, especially on the same table, but it was a disagreement to what you wanted. Secondly, a suggestion, equal to your own suggestion, is not anymore a denial of your suggestion to create a new table than yours is of my table existing. Stop convoluting historical accounts to your advantage. You are aware of the 3RR rule, as other users here have before seen you blocked for violating it, and were once more warned of it, yet persisted. -Oluwatalisman (talk) 15:01, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

I was totally perplexed with his blatant disregard for the rules (The same set of wiki rules he lavishly doles wrongly when he wants to).. How can someone be engaging in an edit war over another person's post and still disregard warning? Interestingly, his newest edits were still on the table, just now placed in a separate rows to show difference in progression and keep the time flow of discussion and context intact. The most disturbing was his reason for disregarding 3RR with the words: "(I have to revert again so that you show mw whare this statement of yours hold water."And what am I supposed to do about the fact that you have removed my discussion points which are needed for the independent commenters to take consideration of? They are currently missing and to your benefit." Do not threaten me again.)" [85]. Evidently, he deliberately ignored the rules, willingly went into an edit back and forth and then construed an edit warning as a 'threat'. Isn't this clearly WP:BATTLEGROUND editing? Oramfe (talk) 16:18, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

It seems so to me @Oramfe, but we will try to let the Administrators do their jobs. Thank you -Oluwatalisman (talk) 16:42, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

Ppdallo, in light of the fact that Talisman asked you to use a combined table approach, that proves what I assumed all along: that your initial edit of the table was meant in good faith. That said, as soon as Talisman decided to revert your edit, finding your approach to a modification of their own post problematic, you should have dropped the matter there and just made your own table. Actually the joint table was always a bad idea after the original one had been up for a bit and others had already responded to it (posts that have preceded a substantial amount of responding discussion should typically not be drastically altered, as such alterations can put the comments of responding editors in a very different light from how they were intended). But I'm not about to fault you for following what would reasonably have seemed like the approach to discussion your rhetorical opposition wanted, based on the earlier request to just edit the table jointly. However, once it became clear that approach was not working, and Talisman wanted to default their post (that is, the table) back to how it originally read, you should have just accepted that and made your own table. Edit warring to preserve your edit of another user's comment is just 100% unacceptable, outside the narrow exceptions permitted under WP:TPO. Please remember this for future discussions. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 18:40, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

@SnowRise Thank you for your involvement. Just to clarify, what was suggested to Ppdallo was to add the extra claims to the bottom of the table which is exactly how it reads now, and part of what he didn't want to accept, so I defaulted to exactly what I asked of him in the first place, which is what he was disagreeing to. And in case he had misunderstood what I had suggested, not commanded, this should have further clarified for him all he needed to know, and this should have sealed it, but he reverted that too [86]. It seems he has now presented himself as hopelessly bound to the potential misunderstanding of my suggestion on one hand while necessarily opposed to my clarification of my own initial suggestion on the other hand. The fact that, in one sense, he "had" to do what he thought I said, and in the other sense he just couldn't accept what I said, suggests to me that it wasn't about what I had said. -Oluwatalisman (talk) 19:36, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

Yes, after I read that comment in context, I gathered that you were happy to allow the table in your post to be edited, provided it was divided into two enumerated lists. That said, in the interest of clarity and avoiding any further miscommunications, edit wars and meta-arguments distracting further from the content issues, I think it's best just to let Ppdallo construct their own table (or present their sourcing counter-arguments to your table in whatever form they prefer). Just as a friendly tip, it's probably best in circumstances like this not to encourage someone you are in a content dispute with to edit your own post, especially when it's already been responded to: there's just too many ways that can lead to conflict. It would be another matter if the table was created outside of one of your posts and was structured in such a way so as to be an objective summary of all positions, rather than one which asserted your conclusions. But given you placed that table in your own post and infused it heavily with your own read on the situation, it was always going to be problematic to have Ppdallo edit it, given you are editing at cross purposes already. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 20:35, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

@SnowRise Thank you. Ppdallo is, and has always been, as free as Wikipedia allows him to to create his table however he wants to on this talk page, and considering he has hardly accepted anything I've said since we met on Wikipedia, I don't suppose I'd have to let him know that for him to know it. I hardly see myself as in a content dispute at this juncture, even, and at this point, I see myself as mostly responding to allegations with each section created about me as an opportunity for the other party to effectively WP:LAWYER his way to gaining his wishes on the article. In light of my continual run-ins with this user, as opportunity comes for me to report him on conduct I feel affected by, I will do it. I am glad you have stepped in and refocused all on the content. As for me, I am not so invested against him that I would bar him from appending non-overlapping columns and rows to my post any more than you've added the non-overlapping numbering column which has been very helpful to this development infact. Furthermore, the suggestion featured two new columns that would clearly state each others reactions to the table letting everyone know, in the case the suggestion was taken up in the only form in which it was presented, that it was completed as a joint undertaken of more than one user, in dispute with or not. The last column was supposed to be independent input and the entire suggestion was not taken up on, in fact he blatantly disagreed, so I don't suppose any of this should be used as an excuse in retrospect. I don't think any of us have time for behavioral 180s. As far as the manner in which the table was created, there is always a chance that an objective summary would exactly match my assertions when all is done anyway, and Ppdallo had the chance to balance out whatever biases I may have had against my knowledge if he had taken up my suggestion precisely how it was presented. The only reason I added those policy columns is I, and Oramfe, have been continually bombarded with them and I wanted to visually compare how we actually measured up against those allegations and not as some kind of bias against the user but to lay those allegations to rest. Again, the other user has a chance to Agree or Disagree, I was intentful with my suggestion. Please follow up with his table when he creates it. I do not care where else he places it. -Oluwatalisman (talk) 21:51, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

Well, much as I viewed that table as a very clear, concise, and all-around helpful way to summarize your views (which went a long way to clarifying matters for those of us who were late comers to the discussion), I think it might have been expecting too much from the table to trust that it could host two different editor's perspectives (let alone become a place for aggregating feedback). It was a great way to lay out your own views on the sourcing and content, but the nitty-gritty of any further debate is just always going to be too complicated to be contained in such a format, I think. That said, I wouldn't mind in the least if Ppdallo replicated your approach by summarizing their positions in a similar table: as your original table demonstrated, it's a very good tool for that narrow purpose, and being able to cross-reference two such tables would allow quick comparisons of the arguments and sourcing for the various points sill in dispute. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 22:26, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

@SnowRise Sounds good. -Oluwatalisman (talk) 22:29, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

I'm voluntarily hatting this meta commentary, which I think is necessary to address some expressed grievances on one editor's part, but which is more or less solely concerned with conduct, sanctions, and process, and thus is not directly useful to resolving the remaining content issues. Ideally this side discussion should be resolved without further commentary, with any further thoughts saved for relevant ANI/AN3 threads or user page discussion, but if someone does find it necessary to respond to these posts, please keep thoughts as cordial and constructive as possible. SnowRise let's rap 04:53, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
@SnowRise let's rapDid you really take a look at the map he "reverted" to? Just take a look[87]. That map had changed the numbering order that even you yourself made reference to. This was my edit summary for reverting that new map [88]. If he had defaulted to the original map[89] i would have no reason to revert it. I will not accept his false accusation of me edit warring. I demand apology from him and also he should apologize here at Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring[90] for rising false alarm. He has formed that habit of false accusation against me like the one here, which i consider even more serious instance where he willfully and falsely accused me of an edit i did not make, having fully discussed and agreed on the edit with the person that made it, as evidenced in the link[91] (I have already told you that Wikipedia is not the place to try to Arabize the Yoruba people or to add them to some Hausa/Arab Expansion pack. It is an encyclopedia for crying out loud, and all your post and revert are about this. What is with the new entry of posting an Ajami translation of the title to the page? Yorubas speak French even more! Yoruba will do, English will do, even French. That translation neither servers an understanding of the topic of the page nor the language of this Wikipedia version and you reverted my change to do it; this is English Wikipedia for crying out loud. Virtually nobody here reads or writes in Ajami. Please consider adding it to the Arabic translation of the Yoruba people. We cannot add every language to the text, other Wikipedias exist for that and stop trying to colonize Yorubas through Wiki. It looks weird)[92]. At this juncture, i have to, on a more serious note, draw your attention to the fact that right now i feel like an editor surrounded by false accusers and that you, UserSnowrise is not helping matters. I earlier addressed this to you I am just noticing something here (Yes, I am aware that the table reflects TW's read on the various disputes/issues, but I also followed the links in your response post immediately following the table. Ultimately I agreed with some of Talisman's positions and some of yours, as per the above comments. As to present/past versions, I don't see the value in getting bogged down in the edit history at this juncture: what we're talking about is how the article ought to read from here, so let's build that discussion from the bottom up. Based on Talisman's summary, and your responses I have indicated which enumerated claims I believe are supported by the sources presented thus far and which are not. On claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 8, and 10 I have provided my take on which statements are WP:VERIFIED and WP:DUE and which are not. If you disagree on my read, I'm all ears, but you will have to be more specific than just posting diffs and saying "this version is bad" or "this version is better". I think we can discuss more precise wording once we have a rough consensus on which claims should be included in principle, though you're welcome to make your own suggestions at any point. On issues 3, 6, 7, 9, and 11, I have not seen any evidence that these statements are supported by sourcing, and would need to know what RS you believe support these statements before I could consider changing my perspective.) It seems the the line i quoted above, in your response to me has been altered. Why? please i need to know. and you are yet to respond. I still need an answer because the altered text was used to falsely accused me of edit warring. Ppdallo (talk) 09:35, 2 November 2021 (UTC) Ppdallo, I'm aware you have been blocked at AN3 for the edit warring on this talk page, but I'll do you the courtesy of responding to your post even so, in the hope that when you are permitted to return (presuming the TBAN does not pass at ANI as it seems likely to do at the moment), you will have answers to your questions and the discussion can hopefully finally be resolved from there. You might not like all the feedback I am going to give you--any more than you seem to like the more or less uniform feedback you have received from the community members who spoke at the various AN3 and ANI threads, the blocking admin, and the one who has denied your unblock request--but I'm genuinely trying to be as frank with you as possible for your own good, more so than anyone else's. "Did you really take a look at the map he "reverted" to? Just take a look. That map had changed the numbering order that even you yourself made reference to." First off, that doesn't actually appear to me to be entirely accurate: it seems to me that Talisman subdivided one of the points but otherwise maintained the same ordering of the points. Now, to the extent you still found that to be problematic, you should have just pointed it out here on the talk page in a post of your own and objected. As was already pointed out to you, you are not permitted to alter the content of another user's post against their wishes, except under very rare exceptions, none of which apply here. And you are certainly not permitted to repeatedly edit war to try to override to your preferred version of someone else's post. Period. End of story. It doesn't matter how misleading you find their comments to be. Even if you had been absolutely right about the changes being problematic and even if there was evidence that it was done in bad faith (neither of which I think is particularly true here), you still would not be permitted to edit another editor's comments to read as you think they should. Your oversight solution in those circumstances is to provide diffs (either here for evaluation of the content argument and/or on a community board to discuss behavioural issues). But you are not permitted to edit another editor's comments into conformity with your desires, and I hope the block has reinforced that point in a more effective way than others telling you as much here was able to. "If he had defaulted to the original map i would have no reason to revert it." Under policy, you had no authority to revert it, regardless of how good you thought your reasons were. "I will not accept his false accusation of me edit warring." Well, frankly, if you had, you probably would have saved yourself a two week block, since the blocking admin cited your WP:IDHT on this point as part of the reason the block was felt necessary. "I demand apology from him and also he should apologize here at Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring[93] for rising false alarm." I'm not sure what to tell you aside from I honestly don't see that happening; I don't think it would have happened even if an admin hadn't endorsed the complaint with a block, but certainly not now that it has. "At this juncture, i have to, on a more serious note, draw your attention to the fact that right now i feel like an editor surrounded by false accusers and that you, UserSnowrise is not helping matters." Well I'm sorry that you feel put upon--genuinely I do--but I have to be blunt with you: I'm not here to defend you to the hilt, come hell or highwater. My only intended outcome here, since I was bot-summoned to this discussion by your own RfC, and found a shambles of an untrackable discussion when I arrived, has been to clarify the positions between you and your rhetorical opposition and then to facilitate a consensus resolution one way or another. But the irony of your complaint is, I actually am the closest thing you've had to an advocate in this dispute. I don't know if you have been following the most recent ANI discussion about your behaviour, but literally every single other respondent to that thread has either tacitly or expressly endorsed a TBAN for you from the entire content area of West African peoples. I'm the sole person who argued maybe that was excessive. Which is not to say I do not have any criticism of your approach: from my first post here, I've tried to make it clear that I think there are problems with your often-times bombastic tactics, which can dip into the outright violations of WP:CIV and WP:EW and into disruptive and tendentious territory generally (sentiments which have been pretty universally reflected in the feedback you have received at the ANI and AN3 threads). Even so, because the original disruption here and at related pages has not been altogether one-sided, I advanced the position that maybe it was not entirely fair to penalize you in too out-of-proportion a manner. Others in that thread disagreed, feeling your behaviour was particularly problematic. I must admit, I am quite losing the interest to debate that point with them, at this stage... Regardless, if that level of support (far beyond the benefit of the doubt most editors are willing to give you at this point) is insufficiently to your liking, and nothing short of someone telling you that you are 100% in the right will do, I think you're going to have to live with disappointment here. "I earlier addressed this to you . . . and you are yet to respond. I still need an answer because the altered text was used to falsely accused me of edit warring." No, it actually was not: you were accused/blocked for edit warring by way of altering another editor's post repeatedly, against their expressly stated wishes. Nothing in anybody else's comments alters that fact. I'll be honest with you: I don't know exactly how you think these comments were altered, but it's also immaterial to your block: it doesn't matter what order the original table listed the points in, and it doesn't matter whether the listing was consistent, or even whether Talisman fundamentally changed the ordering after the fact (and I don't think they did): the conduct you were blocked for was editing another user's post and then repeatedly reverting to keep your preferred version. Even if you had been 100% correct that there were problems with consistency between the posts (and I don't think you were), you still were not permitted to alter another user's post and edit war to enforce that change. And your refusal to accept that fact is, as far as I can tell from the blocking admin's rationale, the reason why your editing privileges have been temporarily suspended. And as the admin who denied your block appeal further pointed out, nobody else was responsible for those actions or the refusal to drop the stick, nor does the conduct of any other editor exculpate your own behaviour in that respect. I know this lengthy post may look to you to be nothing but longwinded chastisement, but I encourage you to look at it in another light. First off, I felt it would be rude not respond to your expression of feeling put upon. Unanswered grievances are the type most likely to fester in circumstances like this, and I felt it worth trying to avoid that outcome. But also, you have a very stark choice facing you now. The blocking admin at AN3 has said that the two week block was a final warning: that the next block for similar behaviour will be indefinite. On another track, if the ANI thread doesn't result in a TBAN, it will only be because the AN3 sanction somewhat preempted it, which is kind of a bizarre stroke of fortune for you here. You have, against all odds (considering how poorly received your conduct has been in ANI/AN3 threads by those who have commented therein) an opportunity to turn this situation around. But you will only be able to avail yourself of that narrow path to retaining your full editing privileges if you recognize that at least some of the problem lays with you, and thereby correct the behaviours which have landed you in trouble, rather than fixating on the conduct of others and perceived slights, thereby frustrating the community's ability to believe you can adjust your approach to disputes and edit warring. And remember, I am giving you this advice as the person who has most endorsed your perspective that you are not the only one to blame for the disruption. Rightly or wrongly, your disruptive behaviour is that which has most caught the eye of the community in this cluster of disputes. You can either swallow your displeasure at not having received the complete support you think you are due in these circumstances and focus on your own behaviour and what the community has told you that you must change, or you can come out swinging on your return to editing and almost certainly be TBANned from this content area or indefinitely blocked from editing altogether. I have now spent a pretty significant amount of time advising you and (kinda sorta) defending you, on the belief that you can adapt in this way. I hope it has not been wasted effort. But if you continue to find fault only with other parties in these circumstances, even my partial support for you will melt away. The best advice I can give you in these circumstances is to spend some time over the next couple of weeks while you cannot edit reviewing some important behavioural guidelines, including WP:TPG, WP:EW, WP:CIV, WP:RGW, WP:TE, and WP:DE. Even if you think the criticism you have come in for on this page and at the noticeboards is unfair, internalizing the content of these policies can only serve to help you weather future disputes better. Best of luck to you, and happy editing when you return. SnowRise let's rap 04:52, 4 November 2021 (UTC)