Talk:Chile–Peru football rivalry

Rivalry? WTF?

In Chile this rivalry does not exist. In Peru only exists and is only due to the Pacific War, not sports.

I am not in any position to comment on whether or not this rivalry exists, but in light of the above and other commentary, it may be a good idea to add something to the history section about the countries' long-standing rivalry in general, dating at least from the War of the Pacific. --Piledhigheranddeeper (talk) 16:04, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Blogs

~Blogs as references aren't necessarily the best and most essential tools to use. Blogs may also prove to be overtly biased so any other kind of official reference would be ideal.Selecciones de la Vida 05:48, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but the blog was a reference to an article made by a Spanish newspaper (Not a Chilean or Peruvian newspaper; hence neutral). But if you say so, then so be it. Which by the way, if anybody could then find some usable reference(s)? That would be greatly appreciated. I'll keep searching for some, but I can't make any promises.MarshalN20 01:48, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Recent Matches

~The list is going to be extended in the near future to include all matches. The FIFA head to head chart is being used as a reference, and the games are being added in chronological order. Selecciones de la Vida 20:19, 25 August 2007 (UTC) -This page is heavily vandalized by Peruvian commentators, who don't know English and try to write absurd insults to Chile, like "they cry all the time" phrases in weird places. I suggest an entire review of this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.83.124.14 (talk) 04:14, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Further Improvements?

Well, the article has been created and fulfills its purpose as a good reference to the Chile vs. Peru rivalry. Thanks to all who participated in this (Most notably Selecciones de la vida and myself), but if any more information can be found then it is most welcome for somebody to post it up in here. A list of what would be neat to include in the article are: Pictures (Preferably of a match between the two teams) and some more interesting information that could make for a new section within the article.MarshalN20 12:43, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Copy and Paste of Bicycle kick article

Why does this article go so much in detail about the bicycle kick? If there’s another article entirely dedicated to that topic, why is it extensively being discussed here too? The format of this article is also inconsistent. The Chilean claim has no international recognition sub-section while the Peruvian claim does.

I say we should do away with the copy & paste of both claims and add a brief mention of the “controversy” regarding the origin of the kick, in addition to including a link to the main article.

Likeminas (talk) 17:44, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. Thanks for your contribution Likeminas.--[|!*//MarshalN20\\*!|] (talk) 05:18, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

I deleted this section for the sake of fairness, the issue about the bicycle kick was only citing Peruvian references which is quite extraordinary and totally biased. Peru is the only country in latin america that has its own unique name for the "la chilena". And lets be honest my Peruvian Bloggers, would any good Peruvian dare call this skill "The Chilean" chile won the war by the way...lololol just to let you know lolololol --210.50.244.227 (talk) 21:46, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Chile and Peru rivalry

a rivalry between two countries that have never made a major impact in international footbal, chile was the first country to win a red card (caseli) it was also the first time in which video footage was used to refute the claims of an injured chilean player. He was acting in maracana. Chilevic (talk) 03:35, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Both Chile and Peru have made several major impacts in the sport, both positive and negative.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 00:33, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Copa del pacifico

Im not convinced this is a true football rivalry, as I'm very sure this football rivalry only exists in Peruvian minds. However I suggest changing the title of this page to "Copa del Pacifico" which is the offical name of the chile-peru football contest.--Chelios123 (talk) 10:36, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Per the sources, the Copa del Pacífico is part of this rivalry but not all of it, and covers only 19 of the 74 games they've played. Note that Spanish Wikipedia has two articles, es:Rivalidad futbolística entre Chile y Perú and es:Copa del Pacífico (Chile-Perú). --Arxiloxos (talk) 13:48, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes, the "Copa del Pacifico" is disputed whenever any side feels like disputing it. This article is about the rivalry in general.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 00:28, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Only a peruvian rivalry

In chile this rivalry doents exist, maybe in peru, but not in chile,Peru is not chile main rival in football — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.105.87.184 (talk) 00:14, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

If this was only a Peruvian rivalry, there would not be so many reliable sources that state otherwise.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 00:30, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Inca del sur

A new team will be added to the Chilean football federation that will represent the Peruvian community in Santiago called "Inca del sur". The information is sourced from a Peruvian website but with a simple google search you can find out more. To put things in perspective, can you imagine an English team in the Scottish premier league or an Argentine team in the Uruguayan league. Footballing rivalry put aside, a Peruvian team in Santiago de chile seems to be a big deal and it will defiantly put a spanner in the works in this "football rivalry". If someone doesn't agree that this relevation doesn't deserve a place in this article, please please state your case. --Chelios123 (talk) 15:10, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

You are conducting a WP:OR in the page. Your personal conclusions are not acceptable in Wikipedia.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 15:25, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

its not a lie, the peruvian team in chile is actually going to happen. i don't understand your position. lots of references out there. I can add more if you wish. Chelios123 (talk) 15:29, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

I don't know why you wish to delete this information, it's from a peruvian source, its factual, its about football, it involves chile and peru, what more do you want???? Personally i think its wonderful news. Peruvians in Santiago can finally have a team to represent them just like palestians, italians and the spanish do. Chelios123 (talk) 15:39, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Please stop edit warring in the article. Your addition constitutes WP:OR. Please read the WP:OR page. The source at no point claims this has any relevance to the football rivalry. In fact, only you are the one making a connection between an irrelevant news to the subject of this article. Regards.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 16:05, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

• Please, let's not have an edit war on the article page. As I see it, the issue here is not whether the information is factual, but whether it's relevant to this article. A lot of the trouble is caused by the introductory phrase "Despite the alleged existence of a footballing rivalry between Chile and Peru", which appears to be yet another inappropriate expression of the editor's opinion, and is certainly not WP:NPOV. It's not obvious that the existence of a Peruvian ethnic team in Chile is (or is not) relevant to the rivalry between the national teams. Personally, I would not object to a purely neutral mention of this new team in the article, but only if consensus supports it, and in any event the tone of the content as currently proposed is not acceptable. --Arxiloxos (talk) 16:12, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

I've read the news information, and at no point does it make any connection to the rivalry. The information is completely irrelevant to this article. It would be relevant if the source directly claimed this demonstrated the non-existence of a rivalry; but this is not the case.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 16:15, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Just a few sections above, Chelios' intentions are clearly pointed out with his statement: "Im not convinced this is a true football rivalry, as I'm very sure this football rivalry only exists in Peruvian minds". His actions constitute POV editing, and he is also well-aware that his reverts constitute edit warring behavior.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 16:17, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

I've made a minor change to the paragraph which i hope gives a neutral view on the rivalry. its no longer an alleged rivalry, its a fierce rivalryChelios123 (talk) 16:29, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Your insistence on maintaining the WP:OR behavior is only reinforcing the edit war accusation. Please simply remove the irrelevant text in its entirety. Regards.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 16:33, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

I disagree with your accusations, the news is totally relevant to this article, it adds an extra dimension to the rivalry. I'll be happy to reword the paragraph which might satisfy you in anyway.Chelios123 (talk) 16:41, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

I agree with MarshalN20 that the entire paragraph should come out unless and until there is consensus to include it. The change to "fierce rivalry" doesn't fix anything: it's still an unsourced attempt to invent a connection between the national rivalry and the new local team. In Los Angeles there is Chivas USA which was originally established with the intention of soliciting support from the local Mexican community; that hasn't worked so well [1], but more to the point here, no one would ever suggest that the existence of that MLS team diminishes the Mexico–United States soccer rivalry. And one more, minor note: the sources I've seen say that the new team's name is Incas del Sur (note the plural). --Arxiloxos (talk)

Arxiloxos makes an excellent comparison with Chivas USA and the Mexico-US rivalry.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 16:55, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree, the paragraph I added doesn't diminish the rivalry but merely adds a unique dimension to the rivalry. If Marshall thinks it doesn't then i'll be happy to reword it to satisfy him. As comparing chile-peru to the USA-mexico soccer rivalry....well its the equivalent to comparing a USA-england cricket rivalry. One country likes cricket the other one doesn't.Chelios123 (talk) 17:12, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

I mean no disrespect to American football(soccer) but its Not a popular sport there. I don't believe there's a strong football culture in that country compared to in chile and peru. It doesn't compare Chelios123 (talk) 17:27, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Regarding my revert. I take no sides on the content dispute here but its clear from the discussion there is no consensus at this time to add the material. I would agree there is a degree of WP:OR in the material that was added, later versions are better but there needs to be a WP:CONSENSUS established. Per WP:BRD the onus would be to take it to talk rather than edit warring, which is clearly what happened here. That said the first edit summary wasn't helpful [2] labelling an edit senseless material that has nothing to do with the subject. is not likely to result in a collegial discussion and I would remind Marshall to A) WP:AGF and B) provide an informative edit summary in future. I would also suggest that Chelios123 refrain from edit warring, even if you take offense at such an edit summary responding in the way you did isn't going to calm matters. I'd end by reminding everyone that text doesn't convey emotion or nuance well and it is all too easy to misintepret a necessarily brief edit summary. OK folks over to you. Wee Curry Monster talk 19:46, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

thanks for the kind words but you seem to have a history in defending marshal which leads me to question your motives. Either way let the debate on the paragraph be ongoing until a impartial consensus is achieved. Chelios123 (talk) 20:28, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

You're not debating here, you're imposing your edit on the article. The idea of WP:BRD is to add it after you have gained WP:CONSENSUS not force it into an article anyway. I note your lack of WP:AGF and have commented at WP:3RRNB about your 4th revert. You will note also on every occasion I've disclosed my previous interactions with Marshall and you should also have noted that because of that I am more critical of him than I have been of you. Wee Curry Monster talk 20:39, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

I've seen the history, your so wrong. Either way if the paragraph gets shunned again I won't be reverting. In the end I thought it was a relevant piece to add to the article but somebody who will remain nameless simply didn't like it. Just look at the initial comments he gave. Good luck and no hard feelings Chelios123 (talk) 20:54, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Article Lede

I see this in a lot of articles, the lede was written first long ago when the article was a stub. It has never reflected the article itself. I would like to rewrite per WP:LEDE to simply state.

“ Chile and Peru share a long standing rivalry between the national football teams of both countries, their club teams, and their respective fans. Matches between the two nations are keenly contested and their games have a reputation for competitiveness. ”

Opinions are sought. Wee Curry Monster talk 15:38, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

• Some sources about the rivalry were identified during the AfD discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chile–Peru football rivalry. A 2008 CNN article identifies this as one of the "top 10 international rivalries" and makes the connection between the countries' political history and their soccer rivalry. [3] A June 2013 article in The New York Times called "Peru, Chile and the War of the Pacific" says much the same thing with more detail.[4] Either in the lede or in the history section, these and the other sources could be used and cited. --Arxiloxos (talk) 16:00, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

• I suggest reading the articles on the war of the pacific and the chile-peru relations in-order to fully comprehend this rivalry. Just a side note in the the peruvian media a chile vs peru match is usually called the Clásico del Pacífico which is a clear reference to the war of the pacific. Chelios123 (talk) 22:15, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

The term "Clásico del Pacífico" is a reference to the Pacific Ocean, which is the body of water that has a clearly important role on both states.--MarshalN20 ^Talk 01:27, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

I agree, reluctantly as Chelios has simply reverted, without engaging in talk I will be reverting again. WCM_email 11:28, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

• your observation is valid to some degree however the previous AfD discussion it was made quite clear that there is a connection between the rivalry and the war of the pacific,thus the war was based in the pacific ocean west of chile and peru. I dare to say if the proposed lede was active during the AfD discussion maybe this article would not exist right now. Either way I have no problems with the other recent changes, kudos for you Chelios123 (talk) 11:32, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

• To be clear, it wasn't mentioned at AfD and in fact the newspaper articles that do mention it are quoting the wikipedia article verbatim. This merits an article because it is known as one of the great football rivalries. WP:LEDE indicates the lede should reflect material in the article, as I noted above the lede you have edit warred back into the article (3 reverts by the way) does not conform to policy. I have to note per this SPI report Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Keysanger there are other factors at play here. WCM_email 11:58, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

• i don't know which AfD dissucion your looking at but the CNN report in football rivalries was the basis for editors choosing to keep this article. In that report the connection of the war of the pacific and the rivalry is clearly mentioned and thats why its appropriate for the article lede. My critique of the proposed lede is as follows; its generic and therefore transferable to any proposed rivalry that aims to hide any historical origins. I got no more to say on this subject.Chelios123 (talk) 13:23, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Chelios, you nominated this article for deletion knowing very clearly that this is a notable football derby. Your justification was based on pompous nationalism ("Overall most Chileans don't consider Peru as a rival."). Regardless, the reason this article exists is opposite to your reasoning. Surprisingly, whoever wrote the first subsection in this talk page had a point worthy of analysis: "In Chile this rivalry does not exist. In Peru only exists and is only due to the Pacific War, not sports." In other words, if you were correct, then this article would only merit a footnote in a geopolitical article (such as Chile-Peru relations). However, as has been demonstrated, this article is notable as a sports topic and merits a stand-alone article such as this one. Moreover, the fact that both countries' national teams regularly dispute a trophy during "friendlies" pretty much throws out the argument that this is only a significant rivalry in Peru.--MarshalN20 ^Talk 14:23, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

• we all due respect but your going off topic, the only significant comment that pops out is that i have "pompous nationalism" (i hope that's not an insult). The afd reasoning and voting rationale was very clear so if you can't comprehend that, then i can't help you. Either way, i'm glad you made an effort to improve the article. However the information in the article lede and its reference was fundamental to keeping this article alive so I question why you replace it with a generic, transferable paragraph which is not very informative at all. I recommend adding something about the origins to the rivalry which we all know what it is, minus the "pompous nationalism". i'll leave it up to you. Chelios123 (talk) 16:22, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Funny. You're connecting a specific war as the "origin" of the football rivalry between Chile and Peru, and yet you claim I am the one off-topic?

The sociopolitical context of the football derby, as a background, is important but not the primary topic. The primary topic for that discussion is in the article Chile-Peru relations.

The football rivalry has an independent history and development. Its "origin" is not in a conflict. Social animosity is the root.

A good example is media response to Chile's defeat in the 1935 South American Championship match it had with Peru. A Chilean newspaper source from the time writes (emphasis comes from news source): "Chile salio DERROTADO en un match que nunca debio PERDER" (English: "Chile came out defeated in a match that it should have never lost"). A little below a sub-heading reads: "CHILENOS JUEGAN MEJOR Futbol Que los PERUANOS" (English: "Chileans play better football than the Peruvians).

The origin of the football rivalry is, therefore, based on the idea that one side plays better football than the other. It is revealing that the Chilean media is so distressed at their supposedly better players losing to supposedly inferior Peru.

In fact, this connects with the studies that indicate Chileans have had a historic superiority complex against its northern neighbors (Bolivia and Peru), and that this (in turn) is what also led to their wars.

So rather than (a) war causing (b) football rivalry, it is more logical to view as both (a) and (b) being caused by (c) nationalism.

Regards.--MarshalN20 ^Talk 17:02, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

• off topic again, this is about the article lede and using a generic transferable paragraph that is uninformative. I tried to extend an olive branch before. i'll consider the previous post as a long boring rant with some nasty comments (not nationalist i hope).--Chelios123 (talk) 17:34, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

• Could both of you quit the bullshit please? The sole reason I suggested changing the lede is that it didn't reflect the article. Marshal's changes at least addressed this point, reverting with todger waving nationalist comments disnae fucking help. Do I have tae trout the pair of ye fecking eejits? WCM_email 21:47, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Current Edits

the past edits were clearly not done in good faith so I reverted. nothing more to say.Chelios123 (talk) 11:37, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

The current edit clearly were done in good faith to improve the article, it is your personal attacks that are becoming the problem here. I would strongly advise Marshal to not reply to accusations of bad faith, as ill-tempered responses are rarely helpful and obsucre who is responsible for derailing discussion. It is often better to simply ignore them. Chelios the attempt to needle Marshal is nakedly obvious to everyone concerned and I would advise you to stop now. You comment on content not editors or the next stage will be a report at WP:ANI. WCM_email 11:57, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

The past edits are clearly reflective on the nasty comments marshal made before, therefore my evidence of bad faith is justified. I tried to avoid any marshall petulance by asking you first. Chelios123 (talk) 12:13, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

just a side note, im sure the events of the past few days will be relevant to the future as per evidence. I tried to be nice and civil but that didn't work. Good luck your editing. no hard feelings, i hope. Chelios123 (talk) 13:00, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

All I will state is that my recent edits in the article were all done in good faith. The images are all relevant to the article, and I have others in storage for when I have time to expand the text and tables. I also broke down the records section in order to distinguish between friendlies, World Cup games, and Copa America (South American Championship) matches. If you have a problem with the edits, you should explain why they are problematic. Please avoid personal attacks.--MarshalN20 ^Talk 15:19, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Translation of nunca debió haber perdido

In the main page the wording nunca debió haber perdido was translated as should have never lost. While taken out of context this translation is correct (in fact, it's the most accurate translation in most circumstances), it's not necessarily correct. This translation implies the existence of an obligation, duty, or correctness. However, especially in the context of sports, the expression is customarily used to empathize that a given result is undeserved; for instance here, here, or here. Similarly the expression no debió haber ganado also exists: [5], [6], [7]. Both expressions signalize whether a given result is deserved or undeserved. This meaning, according to the Oxford dicctionary is not covered by the translation should have never lost and consequentially that translation alters the meaning of the sentence and should not be used. SFBB (talk) 20:23, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

You're conducting original research, which is not allowed in WP. The accurate translation is the correct translation, not the strange interpretation you are inventing here.--MarshalN20 ^✉🕊 23:11, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

I'll add that the Spanish word for "deserve" is merecer, which does not appear in the newspaper headline.--MarshalN20 ^✉🕊 23:14, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Regarding context, the claim that the accurate translation is "out of context" is false. The context of this match is a football rivalry between two countries. This explains why the Chilean press in 1935 deemed it an obligation to defeat Peru in the match. This is a much more accurate explanation than the OR claim made by the user above.--MarshalN20 ^✉🕊 23:31, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

I'm not conducting original research. I'm disputing your word by word translation, because, through your translation, you're conferring a meaning that the sentence doesn't have. I've shown you (with a lot of references) that, in the context of sports, the sentence in not used to imply an obligation, but to consider whether a result is deserved or not.

Through an inaccurate word by word translation you're trying to read the existence of rivalry from the Chilean side. As it's shown in the article with several references (and also claimed by several users here), the Chilean side does not consider that a rivalry exists. In your argument, you commit a Begging the question fallacy, as your translation/interpretation would only be possible if such a rivalry existed (note that it was the first match ever, when Chile had already been playing Argentina, Brazil and Uruguay for almost 30 years already) and then you use it to justify the existence of such rivalry. SFBB (talk) 00:36, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

A direct word by word translation is accurate exactly because it is the exact meaning from the publication, not a personal one. You even admit that this is "the most accurate translation in most circumstances." If we take a closer look at your edit history, we see that you are vested in pushing a POV that supposedly demonstrates Chileans do not consider a rivalry exists ([8], [9]). This includes deleting reliable sources and attributing the opinion of Arturo Vidal as the authoritative voice of all Chileans. This type of POV pushing is very much frowned upon in Wikipedia.--MarshalN20 ^✉🕊 01:07, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

Third Opinion

A newspaper from Chile laments its national team's loss to Peru in their first-ever match

I am requesting a third opinion on this translation matter. Should the translation of the newspaper headline "Chile salio DERROTADO en un match que nunca debio perder" be translated based on the accurate translation or on the personal interpretation of an editor?--MarshalN20 ^✉🕊 23:11, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Here is the diff on the contested text: [10].--MarshalN20 ^✉🕊 23:16, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

I agree with a third opinion. However, I, 100% dispute your wording, as yours is not an accurate translation.; it's only a word by word translation that completely changes the meaning of the sentence. SFBB (talk) 00:36, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

Response to third opinion request: I read all of the relevant discussion, and looked at the source material cited, above. I agree with MarshalN20, regarding the wording used currently and the need to not stray into Wikipedia's policy on "no original research". I also agree it was not appropriate to frame up the third opinion question in a POV manner, as was done, originally. However, the third opinion, in the end, is still the same. I would caution all editors to frame up third opinions in the future in a more neutral and matter-of-fact manner. Also, see "neutralize", helpful edit, by Doniago, at [11]. Good luck!

Right cite (talk) 13:34, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Thank you, Right cite, for the third opinion.--MarshalN20 ^✉🕊 16:31, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

MarshalN20, my pleasure, happy to contribute and help out! Right cite (talk) 16:43, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Arturo Vidal Opinion

It makes no sense to attribute the opinions of a single player to that of an entire country. As far as we know, Arturo Vidal is not the official spokesperson for the country of Chile.--MarshalN20 ^✉🕊 00:53, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

Vidal also has conflicting opinions. In June 2019, he declared "No, las dos son selecciones fuertes. Claramente Colombia se ha visto mejor, pero con Perú es un clásico, hay mucha rivalidad futbolística" ("No, both national football teams are strong. Clearly, Colombia is looking better, but against Peru it's a derby, there is much football rivalry"). [12].--MarshalN20 ^✉🕊 02:20, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

Of course Vidal's opinion is just a single opinion, but I've added next to Vidal's, claims by Alex Varas (even though you insist in deleting it claiming you ant open it; maybe there's a problem with your browser), by Nelson Acosta, by Marcelo Diaz, and now I add Gonzalo Jara and Jorge Aravena. When I have time I'll keep searching for and adding more references (because there is a lot more; I remember Medel's and players in the 90s saying the same), because in Chile the majority does not consider this game to be a derby, and this must be stated in the article.

Of course, you can find some Chilean sources that replicate the Peruvian viewpoint, but you need to acknowledge that the supposed rivalry is, at least, contested in Chile. And that belongs in the introduction. It has been mentioned to you in this talk page over many years and by many users, by you insist on deleting any claim in that direction. Up until that point, I'll put a neutrality template, because what's in the article is just the Peruvian position. SFBB (talk) 15:23, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

I am merely indicating what the reliable sources state. Same as with the translation; merely indicating what the source actually states. You seem bent in creating a narrative based on original research, which I once again remind you is not acceptable in Wikipedia. Your message is clear: This rivalry, despite being listed as among the top in the world by reliable Sports journals and news media, is just a Peruvian invention. Anyone can plainly see that's not the case at all, evidenced in real-time by the fact that this is such a major issue for you as a Chilean.--MarshalN20 ^✉🕊 17:40, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

First of all, stop you're condescending tone. I'm an experienced wikipedia user and I don't need you to teach me how it works.

Second, I'm not conducting original research. I'm showing you that the match is not considered to by a derby by most Chileans (as it's been repeatedly mentioned to you in this Talk) and I'm bringing up a lot of references to show this. You simply ignore them (or treat them all as isolated cases....how many isolated cases do you expect...or do you expect a Chilean investigation on "how Chile-Perú is not derby"....and don't recall having ever seen an article on "how rwanda-malaysia is not a derby") and insist on sources that basically just replicate the Peruvian point of view. Now I see you found an article on a tabloid (yes La Cuarta is a tabloid and not considered a reliable source in wikipedia) describing this rivalry. Here, there is current article published in a reliable source (satisfying WP:SOURCES and not a tabloid like your reference) discussing the supposed rivalry between Chile and Argentina....And no...I'm also not claiming that Chile-Argentina be a derby, but from a Chilean viewpoint, it's under no circumstance considered a less fierce rivalry than with with Perú (and you will find much more information about this supposed rivalry in the Chilean press than about a supposed rivalry with Perú), but non of them is considered by Chilean fans and by Chilean national players to be a derby.

Third, you now claim that me disputing your claim would be an evidence that the rivalry actually exist. That's plainly ridiculous: I would also contest claim that a football rivalry exists between Chile and Venezuela, Chile and Russia, or Chile and Tahiti. Me contesting the existence of those rivalries does not mean that they exist.

And last, in eswiki, this article was deleted because of WP:HOAX. I'm not even claiming that it should be deleted, as it's evidently important for Peruvians and there exist a lot of references from the Peruvian side. I'm insisting that it be mentioned that from a Chilean viewpoint, the rivalry is much less, and that large segments of the fandom and of the football players do not consider it to be a derby or a fierce rivalry. SFBB (talk) 20:09, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

I'm not expecting any number of isolated cases. You're the one that's collecting them for original research, so it's your call as to how many you want to find. I'd recommend you to not waste your time on that, but go ahead and do whatever your heart desires. Just be aware that I will be filing a case at Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard. As for the rest of your statement, all I will say is that Chilean historian Sebastián Salinas, professor at University of Chile, is a very reliable source. Is he a Peruvian hoax too?--MarshalN20 ^✉🕊 21:55, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

Again, I'm not conducting original research. I'm just putting a lot of references together. The only difference is that the Peruvian side, where the rivalry indeed plays a big role, has compiled all evidence, while the Chilean perspective that it's not a derby has not conducted such a compilation. Again what do you expect? No one would would write an article on why something is not considered to be a derby. No one does that and the fact that such an article doesn't exist does not imply the opposite. That's textbook argumentum ex silentio. And then, on that basis you're making the argument that bringing evidence together would be to conduct original research and using that claim to completely disregard the opposite viewpoint.

Just to make it clear: I'm not claiming the the rivalry be a hoax. I just mentioned that that's the reason why the article was deleted by eswiki (a discussion in which I did not take part). I agree that the rivalry indeed exists from the Peruvian viewpoint. However, I'm claiming that it's important to state that form the Chilean viewpoint the rivalry plays a much lesser role and demanding that this fact (supported by numerous evidence) be included in the article and where it belongs (and trying to to hide, as you've been doing).

Finally, you're trying to intimidate by me with filling a case for original research, and trying to impose your vision by doing so (same you did by putting a newcomer-template on my Talk page). But as I said before, I'm an experienced editor and I know the rules, so stop trying to intimidate me. And please go ahead and fill a case. It's gonna be immediately dismissed and then you'll not be able to keep using it to block references.

As discussing with you has proven completely hopeless, I'll be opening a case at DRN, but it require that you're willing to accept the mediation. If not, you can go ahead a fill a case for OR, and I hope you'll be accepting a DRN once it has been dismissed. It won't change the outcome. SFBB (talk) 01:48, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

You're describing a textbook example of source synthesis. I've just been assuming in good faith that you're a new editor and provided information to help you acquire competence. If you're an experienced editor, then you should know better than to conduct yourself as you have been, including disrupting the article with tags and banners because you're not getting it your way.--MarshalN20 ^✉🕊 19:17, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

No. The thing is that you're trying to impose your way by reverting any change that doesn't align with your vision, no matter how much evidence can b presented. You're arguments are textbook fallacies like argumentum ex silentio and begging the question and have exhibited a threatening attitude from the beginning (including claims such as ″be translated based on the accurate translation or on the personal interpretation″, because, of course, your translation is the accurate one). Finally, I'm not hostaging, because my only goal is to raise an issue to a wider audience for cleanup and repair as every possible discussion with you is futile and would only lead to WP:3RR. That's why I used the {{POV}} template and that's also why for second time I'm asking whether you'd accept a WP:DRN. SFBB (talk) 20:58, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

I finally, do not insult my intelligence by claiming you put the newcomer-template on my Talk on good faith. I'm very much aware that we have to assume WP:GF, but that simply goes too far. You'd frankly have to be (how do I put this nicely) very naive to believe my competences with wiki-tools would come from a newcomer (and still, an experienced and educated user not purely trying to intimidate the counterpart would, at least, check the other user before doing so) and about your accusations of WP:LISTEN, that precisely what you'd been doing the whole time (and also in this entire Talk page over the years): what you say is right and everyone else is plainly wrong. SFBB (talk) 22:00, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Anyways, regarding the DRN, I am not interested in rushing to it. Best to be patient. There's currently the case at the Original Research Noticeboard. If you consider that the article has a non-neutral POV, you can also make use of the Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard. There seems to be more activity in that noticeboard, so it could help resolve the matter more promptly than a DRN. Although I think it'd wiser to wait for the resolution of the current noticeboard case so as to avoid forum shopping.--MarshalN20 ^✉🕊 22:14, 17 November 2020 (UTC)