Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Causes of the War of the Pacific

Causes of the War of the Pacific

Editors involved in this dispute

Keysanger (talk · contribs) – filing party
MarshalN20 (talk · contribs)
Dentren (talk · contribs)
KoshVorlon (talk · contribs)
Cloudaoc (talk · contribs)
Eduardo Eddy Ramirez (talk · contribs)
Nizolan (talk · contribs)
Music1201 (talk · contribs)

Articles affected by this dispute

War of the Pacific (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (Permalink as edited by Keysanger at 12:02, 4 November 2016)
Economic history of Chile (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (Permalink as edited by Headbomb at 18:58, 5 November 2016)
Peruvian Saltpeter Monopoly (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (Permalink as edited by MarshalN20 at 18:40, 1 December 2016)
Treaty of Defensive Alliance (Bolivia–Peru) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (Permalink edited by MarshalN20 at 10:23, 23 November 2016)

Other attempts at resolving this dispute that you have attempted

Issues to be mediated

Primary issues (added by the filing party)

Whether there is another well known name of the 1873 Treaty beside of the current technical name of the article that should be considered in the WP:LEDE and wherever it concerns. ("No other common name exists" see Talk:Treaty of Defensive Alliance (Bolivia–Peru)#Name and "Removing the POV rubbish. The treaty has one title"diff)
Whether in the 1873 Treaty's LEDE (and wherever it concerns) the Treaty can be considered or named a defense pact in circumstances that it is a matter of contention. (See "... was a defense pact ..." in current version of the article; "Please cease from disrupting the article" see Talk:Treaty of Defensive Alliance (Bolivia–Peru)#Name)
Whether in the LEDE of the 1873 Treaty and the Monopoly articles (and wherever it concerns) it must be concealed or manifested the fact that Peru sought to build a Peruvian Saltpeter Monopoly and instigated Bolivia to break the Boundary Treaty of 1866 and to refuse the Lindsay-Corral Agreement with Chile. (See MarshalN20's three tags on the article , MarshalN20 conceals the interpretation of Edgardo Mercado Jarrin and MarshalN20's answered: Anything that this article does to present the fringe idea that Peru was attempting to expand its monopoly is inherently slanted. This includes the first sentence of this article in Talk:Peruvian Saltpeter Monopoly#Chilean bias - Article Needs a Rewrite)
Whether the "stated" intentions of the Treaty and the "real" intentions of the secret pact should be clearly differentiated and named in the LEDE of the 1873 Treaty article and wherever it concerns. (See quote of Peruvian historian deleted by MarshalN20)
Whether the Chilean government considered the secret Treaty as one of the causes of the war and, if true, whether it should be said in the LEDE and wherever it concerns. (see diff MarshalN20 deletes the mention of the fact.)
Whether the fact that the Treaty was forged exclusively against Chile and only against Chile should be clearly manifested in the article's LEDE and wherever it concerns. (See MarshalN20 deleted that the 1873 Treaty was forged only against Chile)
Whether in all articles of the Category:War of the Pacific, in the article Economic history of Chile, and wherever it concerns should be stated that the causes of the War of the Pacific were multiple, complex and controversial.
Whether the first sentence of the article about the Saltpeter Monopoly is wrong as stated by user MarshalN20 . (See diff and MarshalN20's answer: Anything that this article does to present the fringe idea that Peru was attempting to expand its monopoly is inherently slanted. This includes the first sentence of this article in Talk:Peruvian Saltpeter Monopoly#Chilean bias - Article Needs a Rewrite)
Wheather the article or sections of the article about Saltpeter Monopoly has a Point-of-View as stated by User MarshalN20. (See diff and MarshalN20's answer: Anything that this article does to present the fringe idea that Peru was attempting to expand its monopoly is inherently slanted. This includes the first sentence of this article in Talk:Peruvian Saltpeter Monopoly#Chilean bias - Article Needs a Rewrite)
Whether the article or sections of the article about Saltpeter Monopoly represents a fringe theory as stated by user MarshalN20. (See diff and MarshalN20's answer: Anything that this article does to present the fringe idea that Peru was attempting to expand its monopoly is inherently slanted. This includes the first sentence of this article in Talk:Peruvian Saltpeter Monopoly#Chilean bias - Article Needs a Rewrite)

Additional issues (added by other parties)

Added by MarshalN20

Chilean expansionism. There seems to be a disagreement on whether or not this was a central cause for the War of the Pacific.
Peruvian nitrate monopoly. Is the article about the state monopoly or about the fringe view of a nitrate conspiracy?
Sources in War of the Pacific. Is the exclusion of Peruvian and pro-Peruvian sources versus the use of Chilean and pro-Chilean sources (e.g., William Sater) systematic?
Secret. Even after the article Treaty of Defensive Alliance (Bolivia–Peru) was renamed, the name "Secret Alliance Treaty..." continues to be used excessively by Keysanger whenever possible. This is borderline user behavior, but certainly relates to the content. How much emphasis on the secrecy of the document is too much emphasis before it becomes disruptively WP:POINTY? Also, how "secret" was the treaty if even Brazil, the United States, and Chile itself knew about it soon after its signing?
Additional issue 5

Added by Dentren

Economic aspects in the causes of the war. Late 19th century viewpoints in Chile, Peru and elsewhere commonly points out the war as a product of an economic interest of Chile and/or private companies. William Sater and other claim to refute this. Yet contemporary scholars such as Julio Pinto and Gabriel Salazar assert an economic drive. ¿How should this be balanced or presented?
Use of William Sater's work as prima scriptura. William Sater's extensive and colorful work has been very helpful in shaping the article, but are his viewpoints and arguments to be preferred and have primacy when it comes to controversial topics?

Parties' agreement to mediation

Agree. Keysanger (talk) 14:46, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sure.--MarshalN20 ^Talk 15:39, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Agree.----Ian (CloudAOC) | ^Talk 22:47, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. Dentren | ^Talk 15:02, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Decision of the Mediation Committee

Chairperson's note 1 to all listed parties: In light of the number of listed parties, I'd like to try to prevent confusion and unnecessary discussion by making some things clear before everyone starts weighing in.

First, if you have been listed as a party but do not care to participate in the mediation and you agree not to edit the articles, or continue discussion at the article talk page, on the matter in dispute you may say so rather than accepting or rejecting and your withdrawal will reduce the party count.
Second, in determining whether prerequisite to mediation #5 has been met conditional "accepts" will almost always be counted as rejects unless the condition is something which is always done in mediation anyway. If the reason for conditioning your "accept" is to contest the way the issue to be mediated is stated by the listing party or to insure that your additional issue is considered, bear in mind that if the case is accepted for mediation and a mediator accepts the case that the mediator will negotiate the exact issues to be mediated with the parties; if you are not satisfied with the outcome of that process you may withdraw from or reject the mediation at that time. Based on the party count at this time, we will need at least 5 accepts before the case can be accepted.
Third, with this many people involved, even if the minimum number of "accepts" is met if many fail to either accept or reject acceptance it is possible for the case to be accepted but the mediator determine that there aren't enough parties or aren't enough necessary parties for the mediation to succeed (see the next subsection) and close it.
Fourth, please understand what mediation can do. It will not hear the arguments and make a judgment as to what is correct. What it will do is to attempt to provide a moderated and guided environment where discussion can continue with a view to reaching consensus. While mediators work diligently towards coming to a negative or positive consensus, they also realize that "no consensus" is a perfectly acceptable result under Wikipedia's wiki concept. In general regarding the concept of mediation, see the article on Mediation.
Fifth, realize that mediations typically take weeks and sometimes months to complete.
Sixth, please do not engage in discussion or reply to other users on this acceptance page. Either just accept or reject (or withdraw, see above) and, if you care to do so, add additional issues in the appropriate section above. Be aware that the privilege of mediation (i.e. that statements and discussions made during mediation cannot ordinarily be used as evidence for any behavioral complaint, though there are exceptions) does not apply until a case has been accepted for mediation and a mediator opens the case.

I'd strongly recommend that all parties read the Mediation Committee policy before deciding to accept, reject, or withdraw. For the Mediation Committee, TransporterMan (TALK) 22:03, 4 December 2016 (UTC) (Chairperson)[reply]

Chairperson's note 2 to Keysanger: First, your issue #9 may be rejected for mediation as a conduct issue under prerequisite to mediation #3, rather than a content issue; if it can be restated without reference to editor conduct, please feel free to do so. Second, in light of the large number of issues, I'm going to ask that you demonstrate that there has been recent extensive discussion as to each individual issue by providing a diff to the most recent edit or edits in the discussion of each issue. If the discussion is spread between various talk pages and/or user talk pages, provide a diff to the most recent edit at each location. Once I have those, I'll determine whether prerequisites to mediation #4, 6, and 8 have been met. For the Mediation Committee, TransporterMan (TALK) 22:25, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I modified old item 9 to new 9+10. I'm ready to deliver the diffs. Tell me where and when. --Keysanger (talk) 08:59, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Just add the diffs after the end of each issue, above, thanks. — TransporterMan (TALK) 13:55, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reject. Fails to satisfy prerequisite to mediation #5, "A majority of the parties to the dispute consent to mediation." For the Mediation Committee, TransporterMan (TALK) 22:25, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]