Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Diablada

Diablada
request links: view edit delete watch

Filed: 07:56, November 6 2009 (UTC)

Involved parties

 * , filing party


 * : you must serve all of these editors with notifications. See here for instructions.

Other steps in dispute resolution that have been attempted

 * Attempts to dialog in the talk page:
 * - failure
 * to address the problem with the definition - failure
 * - failure
 * attempt to calm down the situation - failure
 * Asking for a third opinion from other users involved.
 * Trying to use the tools for dispute resolution such as the Reliable Sources noticeboard - failure
 * Mediation Cabal - Diablada


 * : Please ensure you have fully read this guide before filing.''

MarshalN20 attempt at solving problem


 * Confessions of Erebedhel. I also attempted to solve the problem in the talk page with Erebedel, but the situation did not improve since the lad has his own strong opinions on the matter and I have mine; with the "major" difference being that a couple of users, "Dentren" and "Lupus", gave me somewhat of a stronger support (consensus) than they did Erebedhel. I could post all of the long tedious arguments, but I think that the stronger case can be made from Erebedel himself :
 * Erebedhel confessing that he was aggressive and hostile in talk page: "I promise that none of my actions in the future will be in an aggressive or hostile way."
 * Erebedhel confessing he fell for WP:TRUTH (I don't think I so-much "fell" for it; everybody has opinions, including me, but I can easily adjust mine if and only if I am presented truly reliable information demonstrating I was wrong). Obviously, it's hard to discuss things with people who have such a strong opinion, hence a reason why the earlier attempts at fixing the problem didn't work: "I've been reading WP:TRUTH which is funny essay about most Wikipedians conduct and I think we both fell into that."
 * Erebedel later also made an RfC for my "horrible" conduct, which instead of solving the problem made it even worse. Here he admits to that: "I also apologize for the RfC I now consider it wasn't the best thing to do and I hope that we can leave that aside after it's closed during this weekend."
 * There are some other things, but I think we can leave it at that.

Issues to be mediated

 * The party filing this request uses this section to list the issues for mediation. Other parties can list additional issues in the section below.


 * General balance of the article, there is a dispute between Bolivia and Peru about the Diablada caused by the recent Miss Universe contest where the Miss Peru wore a suit of this dance. Bolivia considers the Diablada as a cultural expression exclusively from that nation. Peru considers it a dance from the Andes and belongs to Chile, Peru and Bolivia. I consider that the article only reflects Peru's POV and it's very difficult to reach consensus.
 * A correct definition and delimitation of the article, MarshalN20 refer as Diabladas to other dances that I think can't be treated as Diabladas unless there is a source saying so.
 * Distinguish between roots and Diablada itself, I interpret that the sources speak of the Diablada as a dance born in the beginnings of the 20th century but with roots back from the prehispanic Uru traditions while MarshalN20 consider that the Diablada is the dance performed in the city of Juli in 1576.
 * Balance of theories about its roots, so far the version of Juli 1576 has a major weight in the article, but I consider that the theory managed by the UNESCO which is the one related to the Uru traditions deserves more space since it's a well respected international organization, besides there are more theories that could be explained.
 * Miss Universe dispute, I consider that section goes against WP:NOT and I don't consider it's a relevant academic event besides of being written in a biased critical way.
 * Newer sources vs. older sources, most of the newer sources come from newspapers and are related to the Miss universe dispute. I don't consider that when conflicting with previous studies those new sources can be considered more reliable.
 * Sources revision, there are some parts where the text does not correspond to the source mentioned or could constitute Original Research. I think it'd be good to review those parts.

Additional issues to be mediated

 * Other parties can use this section to list any others issues they wish to include in the mediation. Please do not modify or remove any other party's listing. Please sign all additions to this section if there are more than two parties involved in this case.


 * Discuss and understand the definition of Propaganda: Bolivia started a propaganda campaign, but there is a dispute regarding the use of this word. The Wikipedia definition and the dictionary.com definition both have a common definition, and I argue that the definition fits in perfectly with the actions of the Bolivian government. This should be cleared once and for all.
 * Distinguish "Balance" from "Development": Only the introduction and certain sections of the article, particulary those where I have worked on, have been developed in the article. The other sections have not been developed due to that, well, I have a life outside of Wikipedia; and also partly due to the ongoing argument that prevents further improvement.
 * Discuss NPOV: Erebedhel does not seem to understand why the following edits are not NPOV,, http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Diablada&action=historysubmit&diff=320945515&oldid=320940518] (Changes things to favor Bolivia), (Speaks of "intentionality of the neighboring countries of Peru and Chile to claim as theirs typical dances of Bolivia").
 * Discuss "Overstatements" and why these editorial opinions are not correct for an encyclopedia: Erebedhele here edited a section to include overstatements in parenthesis and also seems to have misunderstood what the author was presenting (I say "misunderstood" because I'm assuming that it was a Good Faith edit),.
 * Newspaper (Journalist) opinions vs. Interviews (of professionals) and articles made by professionals on a subject: I think there is a clear misunderstanding regarding the journalistic opinions of a newspaper (which would generally be non-reliable), and when a newspaper has an interview of a professional (in this case, anthropologists or historians) or contains an article written by a professional on the subject (which is also the case in this matter).

Parties' agreement to mediate

 * All parties should sign below, indicating that they agree to mediate the issue. If any party fails to sign within seven days, or if a party indicates they do not agree, then the mediation will be rejected. Only "Agree" or "Disagree" and signatures should appear here; any comments will be removed, but can be made at the talk page.


 * 1) Agree.  Erebedhel  -  Talk  07:56, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 2) Agree. -- MarshalN20 | T a l k 03:07, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Decision of the Mediation Committee

 * A member of the Mediation Committee will indicate acceptance/rejection/other relevant notes in this section. Non-Committee members should not edit this section ; all comments should go on the talk page, unless a party is specifically requested to reply here by a Committee member.
 * Accept.
 * For the Mediation Committee,  Ryan Postlethwaite See the mess I've created or let's have banter 21:29, 13 November 2009 (UTC)