Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Description of the causes of a war

Description of the causes of a war

The filing party (the editor who opened this request) will add the basic details for this dispute below.

Editors involved in this dispute

1. Keysanger (talk · contribs) – filing party
2. Dentren (talk · contribs)

Articles affected by this dispute

1. Economic history of Chile (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Other attempts at resolving this dispute that you have attempted

• Talk:Economic history of Chile#Causes of the War of the Pacific
• Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Archive 116#Talk:Economic history of Chile.23Causes of the War of the Pacific
• Talk:Economic history of Chile#Second attempt

Issues to be mediated

What is this dispute about? What sections, sentences, or issues in the article(s) can you not agree on? If you are the editor who opened this request, list these issues to be mediated under "Primary issues". If you did not open this request, you can add additional issues to be mediated under "Additional issues". The issues to be mediated would be properly agreed upon later, if this request for mediation is accepted.

Primary issues (added by the filing party)

1. Should we describe the causes of the War of the Pacific in the article Economic history of Chile solely focused on the "Chilean reasons", without any attempt "to shift focus" to Bolivia and Peru or should we describe also the context of the causes? (See diff)
2. Should we use primary sources to suggest the reader that the presented causes were the real causes of the war? (See diff)
3. Should be theories rebuked by the mainstream historians be explained in the article and mainstream theories sent to a footnote? (See diff)

Additional issues (added by other parties)

• how much of the article section should be devoted to explain the origin of the war? How much of the article section ought to be non-economical?
• what is mainstream and what is not? Is Gabriel Salazar fringe?
• can a works published in 1963 be considered be referring and rebuking a scholarly source from the 2002?

Parties' agreement to mediation

If you are a named party, please sign below and indicate whether you agree or refuse to participate in mediation. Remember that all editors are obliged to resolve disputes about content through discussion, mediation, or other similar means. If you do not wish to participate in mediation, you must arrange another form of dispute resolution. Comments and questions should be made underneath the numbered list below, to avoid confusion.

1. Agree. Keysanger (talk) 14:21, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
2. AgreeDentren | ^Talk 13:00, 25 June 2015 (UTC).

Decision of the Mediation Committee

This section should only be edited by a mediator. The Mediation Committee's representative will indicate in due course whether the request is accepted (meaning a mediator will be assigned) or rejected (meaning you will have to try a different type of dispute resolution). If the mediator asks you a question in this section, you may edit here.

• Accept. This case is accepted for mediation. I will now ask the members of the committee for a volunteer to mediate the case. If no member accepts the case within two weeks, the case will be retroactively rejected for lack of a mediator. For the Mediation Committee, TransporterMan (TALK) 13:24, 29 June 2015 (UTC) (Chairperson)
• Reject. No mediator has chosen to take the case. Retroactively rejected for lack of a mediator. For the Mediation Committee, TransporterMan (TALK) 13:49, 14 July 2015 (UTC) (Chairperson)