Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2010-11-24/White Argentine

Wikipedia Mediation Cabal
Wikipedia Mediation Cabal
Article	White Argentine (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views)
Status	Dismissed
Request date	12:54, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
Requesting party	Pablozeta (talk)
Mediator(s)	MikeNicho231 (talk) 18:11, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment	Closed. No consent from the parties, the dispute is settled. Unclear what should be mediated, claims that an earlier version of the article should be the main topic of the case.

Request details

Where is the dispute?

Primary issues

The article is accused of being Original Research, but all statements are well referenced. There was a dispute about the term White Argentine, so it was clarified in the section Usage of the term. The article is mainly about the White people born and residing in Argentina, and their influence in Argentine culture. The concept of White Argentine includes all the European/Caucasus/Mddle Eastern ethnic groups and their descendants, who intermingled among them in Argentina.; it also includes all Argentinians who may have a little Amerindian/Black African admixture, but whose phenotype is evidently Caucasian. It does not include Mestizo people. This grouping of ethnic groups that is criticized is the same applied in similar articles: White American, White Canadian, White Mexican, White Latin American, etc. All this was--Pablozeta (talk) 12:54, 26 November 2010 (UTC) explained in the talk page.[reply]

Then detractors began to accuse the article of violating BLP policy, so we (the filing party) are trying to collect sources to amend this, but the detractors go further and further erasing photographs and sections at will. As it is explained in the talk page, and in the usage of the term section, if the term is not used in Argentina, how White Argentines will identify themselves with a term they barely use? Most White Argentines will answer: Argentine of European/Middle Eastern descent.

Additional issues (added by other parties)

People, some of them living are being identified through a colour without reliable citations. As in Johnny is a white Argentinian ^{[citation needed]} Off2riorob (talk) 16:23, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Although I admit there's much work to be done regarding the BLP for this article, the criteria is to identify people by (sourced) descent, in the case their ethnicity can be considered illustrative of the umbrella ethnic term "White Argentine". It may be because the person is representative of an ethnic group included under the umbrella term, or because it may be representative of the admixture of the pertaining ethnic groups. Salut, --IANVS (talk) 18:43, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Who is involved?

Pablozeta (talk · contribs) filing party
IANVS (talk · contribs)
Rusoargentino (talk · contribs)
AndyTheGrump (talk · contribs)
Off2riorob (talk · contribs)
Collect (talk · contribs)

Issues to be mediated

What is the dispute?

*The supposed ethnicity 'White Argentine' is not itself properly sourced in the article, and instead appears to be based on an 'ethnic category' applied by outsiders: its application to living individuals appears to be directly contrary to Wikipedia:Categorization/Ethnicity, gender, religion and sexuality, on several grounds beyond issues of sourcing.

Comment: White Argentine is an umbrella categorization mostly used by foreigners (although there are local examples as well), as there is not an equivalent legal/official term in Argentina. All of this is expressed and explained in the article subsection "Usage of the term". Anyway, the term is coincident with like categorizations around the world by international (referenced) sources, and it is intended towards the better understandment of the Argentine ethnic panorama for non-specialized readers. As explained before, individuals are identified by its descent, as long as their ethnicity is undoubtely included below the umbrella definition. Salut, --IANVS (talk) 18:43, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

*The sections on culture give no valid grounds for their discussion of such culture as specifically 'white'. (They are also ridiculously long IMO, but that is another issue).

Comment: The culture sections do not pretend to adscribe cultural expressions to a single ethnia. They just underline the relevant contributions to them made by Argentines identified as White, in the same way other articles underlines, for exapmle, the Yoruba influence and contribution to Tango music. Salut, --IANVS (talk) 18:43, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

*The article fails to consistently distinguish between ethnicity (a self-attributed sociocultural construct), and descent. Instead it switches between the two concepts as and when it suits the purpose of the article.

Comment: It is needed to discern both concepts in this article (but not only in this article, BTW). Anyway, there are plenty of sources that identifdy a distinct Argentine ethnicity conformed by XIX-XX century European, Middle Eastern and Caucasian immigrants (combined with the previous Criollo culture), as distinct from the Argentine-Amerindian ethnicities, the Afro-Argentine ethnicity and the (more recent) East Asian Argentine ethnicity. --IANVS (talk) 18:43, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

*I feel that labelling participants 'detractors' is unhelpful, and possibly indicative of an article ownership problem. There is further evidence of this on the talk page. I accept that this is in part due to language difficulties, but it needs to be understood by all contributors that nobody is excluded from editing an article on any grounds other than non-compliance with Wikipedia policy.

Comment: This is clear, as long as the editions are not disruptive and abusive (i.e. while they are not properly discussed at talk page, as has been the case plenty of times). --IANVS (talk) 18:43, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

*Though again language difficulties may be a factor, the 'edit-warring' that has occurred over templates (see the article history) seems further evidence that some contributors are more concerned with retaining 'their version' than with adopting a more neutral stance towards content.

*Given the existence of many other articles relating to demographics, ethnicity, and migration in the Argentinian context, I can see little reason for this article's existence other than as a WP:POVFORK. Though mediation may resolve this matter, I personally believe that any real solution would require a fundamental rewrite, if indeed WP:RS could be found to justify an article as presently named. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:18, 9 November 2010 (UTC) [reply]

Comment: Demographics, ethnicity and immigration to Argentina articles are referrred to ALL argentines, including East Asian migration, Amerindian demographics and Afro ethnicity in Argentina. This article treat about a more definite subject, so it would be wrong to limit its scope to any of those. BTW, most other medium-size/large caountries have specific articles in WP regarding each of these subjects. --IANVS (talk) 18:43, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ab initio - is categorization-by-race a proper type of categorization, or is it, as applied to BLPs, something which requires specific individual strong reliable sources? Collect (talk) 19:33, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: There's no categorization by race in the article, nor you will find a single racial definition in it. "White" is an umbrella ethnic denomination. --IANVS (talk) 18:43, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~:A comment on the revised 'Primary issues' statement "....it also includes all Argentinians who may have a little Amerindian/Black African admixture, but whose phenotype is evidently Caucasian".~~
'Phenotype' is a term from genetics. If the article is about an 'ethnicity', as it purports to be, such issues are at best irrelevant, or at worst an attempt to sneak a 'racial' categorisation in by the back door. Categorisation of individuals by 'race' is explicitly forbidden in Wikipedia rules:
::Race
::Note: The wording of this section is currently under dispute and should be treated with caution until clarified.
~~::Categories should not be based on race unless the race has a specific relation to the topic.~~
::While a race-specific category could be implemented where race has a specific relation to the topic, the intersection of subcategories of Category:Race are never applied to subcategories of Category:People.
~~:From Wikipedia:Categorization/Ethnicity, gender, religion and sexuality. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:33, 9 November 2010 (UTC)~~[reply]
Comment For newcomers to this conflict, many sections, phrases and references were removed from the article. A diff with the former shape of the article can be found here. The dispute is basically on whenever the former contents of the article were legitimate or not. MBelgrano (talk) 18:47, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As this is a case about claims in an earlier version of the article, I am sorry to tell you that I can't mediate the case. It must be a case that involves a current dispute, this one seems settled. MikeNicho231 (talk) 18:58, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
IMPORTANT NOTE: User:Pablozeta, against my express wishes (see diff), has copied my comments from an earlier mediation request into this one. I consider this a breach of procedure, and am considering what further action to take, but meanwhile have struck them through, as being falsely attributed as comments by me on this mediation request. Please note that after considering his actions over some time, I feel that any attempt at mediation over this issue is doomed to failure, and I do not intend to participate in this mediation case. Given his apparent inability to understand basic requirements of WP:BLP, WP:SYN, WP:OR, etc such mediation will be pointless. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:03, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am aware of that. Is it the content in the White Argentine article that you want me to mediate, or User:Pablozeta's actions? It is somewhat unclear. MikeNicho231 (talk) 19:10, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As I understand it. Mediation can only be undertaken with the consent of the parties involved. I was making clear that I have not given my consent, and have at no time suggested that I would. Pablozeta's actions here will clearly have to be discussed elsewhere. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:14, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What would you like to change about this?
[edit]
The discussion seems to be among deaf people. The article is about the white people living in Argentina, but detractors insist that there is no ethnic group labelled White Argentine, and we say that it is a clustering of European!Middle Eastern ethnic groups. We need an expert on the matter. *There is a long argument on the talk page: Talk:White Argentine.
How do you think we can help?
[edit]
Maybe consult some user whose field of expertice is on ethnic groups or clustering of "White" ethnic groups. That seems to be the main problem; there are many opinions and POVs, but none of us users are a PhD (or else) expert on the matter.
Mediator notes
[edit]
I will take this case, and I will try to find a user that has expertise on ethnic groups. I also see that you, Pablozeta, is shouting in all-caps (Talk:White Argentine#DON'T HURRY SO MUCH. That is not what I find common for a well-respected, experienced user to do. You have also made a personal attack (User_talk:IANVS), claiming that another user has called you Neo-Nazist. Your account is also almost exclusively used for White Argentine articles and discussions, see WP:SPA. MikeNicho231 (talk) 18:11, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Case has been dismissed. MikeNicho231 (talk) 19:21, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Administrative notes
[edit]
Discussion
[edit]