"

Here, Toby72 asked me to take a look at this. Here is what I saw in a not-so quick look at recent edits.
This 14 April version of the article had an initial paragraph in the Colonia Era section which was largely unsupported.
In this 15 April edit, Toby72 replaced this paragraph with new content, still largely unsupported. The new content changed the focus of the paragraph, removing a heavy weight previously given to rape in a master/slave relationship in favor of heavier emphasis on mulatto offspring.
In this series of three April 15 edits, DD2K reintroduced the emphasis on rape, citing supporting sources.
In this 15 April edit, Tobby72 reverted the DD2K edits, saying ""WP is not a blog"".
In this 17 April edit, Tobby72 added and rearranged some material.
In this 17 April edit, anon 69.105.28.149 reverted the article back to its state as of the last edit by DD2K, without explanation.
In this edit, apparently not noticing that the article had been anonymously reverted to one of his prevvious edit versions, DD2K made some further edits to the article, saying, ""Undid revision 550678046 by Tobby72 (talk)Not weighted properly. Vast majority of scholars(and obvious common sense) state slave/master 'relationsips' were rape by the very nature"".
In this May 3 edit, Toby72 added and removed some material in this and other sections of the article. saying, ""readd quotes per WP:NPOV, plus add pics"".
In this May 3 edit, DD2k reverted the prior edit by Tobby72, saying, ""...  rv- stop- If you want to make these kinds of controversial changes, use the Talk page.""
In this May 3 edit, Toby72 added a  tag to the section.

I think I've got that straignt. Some of the edits mentioned above were separated from one another by unrelated edits made by other users.

Guys, please re-read WP:BRD. I know that it is an essay and not a policy, but it does describe a workable method for reaching consensus by identifying objections to edits and keeping discussion moving forward and help towards breaking deadlocks. That Bold-Revert-Discuss method is much superior to the Bold-Revert-Unrevert-Edit war method which has been tried here. Regardless of how the section at issue got to be in its current state, can we please have some discussion aimed at establishing a consensus about what it ought to contain?

It looks to me as if the main area of disagreement is how much weight should be given to information about master-slave rapes in colonial America in an article on the topic of Mulatto, which the lead sentence describes as, ""a term commonly used in the United States to refer to a person who is born from one white parent and one black parent, or more broadly, a person of any 'mixed' ancestry."" Input from editors not involved in the edit-warish exchanges above would probably be useful. I'll mention that this source might be useful. It speaks somewhat to the subtopic at issue here, though not from an American Colonial Era viewpoint.   (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) "