Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Causes of the War of the Pacific (2.)

Causes of the War of the Pacific (2.)

Editors involved in this dispute

Keysanger (talk · contribs) – filing party
MarshalN20 (talk · contribs)
Dentren (talk · contribs)
Cloudaoc (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) 11:51, 12 December 2016 (UTC) This accept is valid only on condition of acceptance of all parties to delete Personal Attacks immediately. --Keysanger (talk) 05:20, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. ----Ian (CloudAOC) | ^Talk 14:30, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Okay.--MarshalN20 ^Talk 02:13, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Decision of the Mediation Committee

~~Accept~~. Please see my last post on the talk page here to see what happens next. For the Mediation Committee, TransporterMan (TALK) 02:28, 20 December 2016 (UTC) (Chairperson)[reply]
Reject. Due to conditional acceptance by filing party, this request now fails to meet the prerequisite for mediation requiring acceptance by a majority of the parties. This rejection is with prejudice against refilling by this filing party on any of the issues stated above. For the Mediation Committee, TransporterMan (TALK) 18:55, 21 December 2016 (UTC) (Chairperson)[reply]