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 DD2 K reintroduced the emphasis on rape citing supporting sources In this 15 April edit Tobby72 reverted the DD2 K 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 DD2 K without explanation In this edit apparently not noticing that the article had been anonymously reverted to one of his prevvious edit versions DD2 K 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