Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Geostrategy

If you're both alright with this, we can get to work here. Let me start by saying a few things that I say at the beginning of any mediation I do (although this is the first one I've done over the internet). You're both administrators so you probably know all this, but I'll say it anyway. Understand that my goal isn't to develop a solution myself, it's to try and help the 2 of you develop the solution. To that end, although I might propose solutions, it's ultimately up to you to agree (hopefully) on a resolution. Lets start with each of you explaining what you think the issues are, in a relatively short way (although I've read the talk page, I find it helpful to have you each lay out your respective sides). JCO312 01:04, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stevertigo raised a good point on my talk page so I thought I'd respond here. Basically, he said that he thinks it can be good to have a mediator express their views upfront, so the parties know that they are being forthright. So, although I'm somewhat familiar with geopolitics, I have no particular opinion on this dispute, in part because I have intentionally avoided analyzing the talk page in depth. I'd rather have each of you explain the dispute here, as you understand it, and work from there. JCO312 02:13, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My dispute with Stevertigo's edits are based on the following:

Steve, who advertises on his user page that his interest is in writing ledes, rewrote the existing lede for Geostrategy in a way that reflected his personal biases rather than reflecting the subject matter.
Steve has stated on Talk:Geostrategy that he has not read any works by any of the dozen or so prominent geostrategists (Mahan, Mackinder, Haushofer, etc), nor any works by the few prominent critics of geostrategy (Fettweis, O'Tuathail).
However, not having read anything about geostrategy, either by geostrategists or by critics of geostrategy, does not stop Steve from rewriting the lede text, essentially redefining the topic according to his personal tastes.
His lede text presents what are essentially criticisms of geostrategy as if they were fact. Additionally, it presents a number of non-sequiturs and ideas unrelated to geostrategic theories as if they were part of geostrategy. This stems from not having actually read anything at all about geostrategy despite arguing with me about it for seven and a half months.
I feel it's worth pointing out that I researched and wrote the article myself, both the text concerning the geostrategists *and* the criticism section. Moreover, after Steve's initial criticism of the lede text, I attempted a compromise lede text which included criticisms of geostrategy directly in the lede (without presenting the criticisms as if they were fact, but simply noting that these were the major criticisms leveled at geostrategy).
Finally, as I wrote before, Steve's text violates a number of Wikipedia policies, WP:OR and WP:CITE principally. Because Steve has not read anything about geostrategy, his lede text is not based on "the state of the debate" and does not represent the existing texts on geostrategy. Therefore, his additions are by definition unable to be cited or verified, since they are not based on any sources he's read. As such, his characterization of geostrategy is essentially his own original research.
Steve counters that his edits are done to make the article NPOV, but the very first sentence in WP:NPOV makes it clear that NPOV requires representation of all disagreeing sources, not personal opinions:
- All Wikipedia articles must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), representing fairly and without bias all significant views that have been published by a reliable source.

I have done research to add to this article text concerning the major geostrategists, text concerning the major critics of geostrategy, and as many citations as I could include when real life isn't monopolizing my time. Steve has contributed no research whatsoever and no citations. I'm not sure why Steve insists on redefining the topic of geostrategy without having read any of it. It would be like insisting on rewriting the lede text of democratic peace theory never having read anything about it. I am willing to accept criticisms of the article that I've written, but I think that another editor writing personal criticisms of subject into the lede text as if they were established fact is wrong. I'm not sure how to resolve this.—Perceval 02:39, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

nothing quite like that

My criticism of the current intro is just that its terribly written-- claiming geopolitics to be "the mother of all strategy" and strategy to be "a means to ends" does nothing to say what it actually is. Worse, it is written from a point of view that claims to be neutral, but which in essence inherits a dominantly proactive Western-originated view of 'forming and applying strategies' to other parts of the world with regard to 'how their resources should be managed.' The social sciences are not all sciences, so we can set aside the air of credentialism and selectiveness about what constitutes geostrategy and what does not. Perceval above mentioned a point I made on Talk:Geostrategy, and, as I'd like whatever points made to be taken in context, I would ask that you read the discussion there, which isnt so long, beginning with my talk with Thames. Its not so difficult to understand, and we shouldnt have a problem finding a middle ground. -Ste|vertigo 10:04, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My understanding of your dispute

First, I have already read the talk page, and so I understand the context of your statements. So, as I see it the dispute can be boiled down as follows,

Perceval is concerned that Stevertigo's edits 1) lack citations, and 2) present his personal criticisms of geostrategy as if they were facts.
Stevertigo is concerned that the lede as written is POV, specifically that it presents a Western oriented view of the topic, and also objects to the use of the phrase "means to an end."

So, Stevertigo, can you provide citations for the changes you've made (for instance, the line "[i]n geopolitics, geostrategy refers to foreign policy motivated by a desire for the control of foreign geographic resources")?

Perceval, are there ways that the lede can be changed to satisfy Stevertigo's concerns about the Western oriented slant? JCO312 15:43, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As I mention above, I researched and wrote the "Criticisms of geostrategy" section myself. Once finals are over (my last final exam is tomorrow evening, wish me luck) I can take a look at JSTOR and CIAO to try and find more published criticisms of geostrategy. But as it stands, the major published critics of geostrategy also happen to be Western--at least as far as I can tell (again, I'm going to see what else I can find).
I have a hard time seeing how strategy as a "means to one's ends" is POV or Western-centric--it's basically a dictionary definition of strategy, and I provided three citations for it. Steve's concern seems more like a criticism of strategy than specifically of geostrategy, and might be best taken up at that article.
The "mother of all strategy" quote is quite openly cited and attributed to two authors--not stated plainly, but presented as their statement--and says it's geography (not geostrategy) that is the mother of all strategy.
And the second paragraph quite frankly discusses the nationalist orientation of geostrategy, addressing Steve's concern about "Western-originated view of 'forming and applying strategies' to other parts of the world." The fourth paragraph of the lede also mentions that critics believe geostrategy to simply be a gloss for imperialism--again addressing Steve's concerns, but stated in a way that does not present criticisms as "the truth."—Perceval 23:36, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I dont have a source for "[i]n geopolitics, geostrategy refers to foreign policy motivated by a desire for the control of foreign geographic resources." It is a sentence which I have composed myself, without any excessive deference to the words of others. Of course I am more than willing to change the wording, if any of these particular words seem to be incorrect. For example if "geostrategy" is largely unrelated to foreign policy or foreign geographic resources, then my sentence would have to be scratched entirely. Likewise, if the phrase "motivated by the desire for the control of..." is incorrect, then that part would need to be rewritten. As I see it, the sentence only contains three parts; the subject, verb, and object. If Percy has digested enough academic material to judge, he could focus his objection at specific parts and points, rather than make a blanket judgment that I am somehow unqualified to use my own mind to formulate an unbiased and focused definition.-Ste|vertigo 00:49, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

First, let's all of us keep this about the dispute and avoid anything that is even remotely close to ad hominem attacks. I don't disagree with your analysis of the sentence, but I would point out that it appears to me that you're basically describing original research ("us[ing] my own mind to formulate an unbiased and focused definition"). Both of you are obviously better versed than I am in this subject matter, so I have some questions which I hope will move us forward,

1) Is it correct to assert that "geostrategy refers to foreign policy motivated by a desire for the control of foreign geographic resources"? (This is a question I put to both of you)
2) To the extent that you believe this is correct, but cannot provide a source, is there a Wikipedia policy that would allow you to circumvent the usual requirement that all statements be sourced? (This is obviously more directed to Stevertigo) JCO312 02:06, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

CITE policy, of which Ive had no small part in helping to define the boundaries, does not require that "all statements be sourced" - if it was, Wikipedia would just be a collection of quotes, no? CITE is subordinate to NPOV, which requires us to use our brains in carefully formulating not just articles and paragraphs, but statements which are themselves NPOV. The easiest way to do this is just to start at the top and work your way down, IMHO. What Percy and I can agree on can be considered at least neutral (although perhaps not sourced,) but under no circumstances should any sourced statements be considered neutral, just as with any POV statements. CITE is often just a way to push a POV, but again, NPOV prevails. -Ste|vertigo 07:32, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion continued

As I understand it, No Original Research is also one of Wikipedia's three content policies, and nothing I've seen suggests that any one of the three outranks the others. Is this something other than original research, and if not, is there a policy that justifies it? JCO312 12:42, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I had to run out to get to a dentists appointment or I would have finished the above post earlier this morning. It seems to me that we are well on our way to formulating a solution. Ideally, I'd like to see a lede that addressed Stevertigo's concerns about POV, and was properly cited. So that I'm clear, Stevertigo, earlier you said that the lede is POV because it "inherits a dominantly proactive Western-originated view of 'forming and applying strategies' to other parts of the world with regard to 'how their resources should be managed.'" I don't think I understand what you mean. To be more specific, how does the lede as written demonstrate dominantly proactive Western-originated views? JCO312 14:06, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(interrupting) NPOV is our one "absolute and non-negotiable" policy, according to Jimbo. Its his foundational philosophical expression upon which other policies are deferential. CITE and NOR attempt to augment and fortify it, but all-too often wind up contradicting it. In other words, there is a heirarchy, and if you look at the wikien thread I linked to above, CITE doesnt come close to NPOV. -Ste|vertigo 22:47, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Steve that there is no CITE standard requiring all sentences to be cited. That would clearly be an absurdly high burden that not even academic or peer reviewed papers need to meet. But, I think CITE applies in this instance, because when something is challenged or controversial CITE is called for: WP:CITE#Material that is, or is likely to be, challenged. So, when Steve challenged the "strategy = means to ends" formulation, I went and got three sources that contained that same statement and cited it.
As for the sentence "geostrategy refers to foreign policy motivated by a desire for the control of foreign geographic resources", it's not necessarily incorrect, but it's an overly limited definition. There are certainly geostrategies that have advocated territorial expansion or seizure of/control over resources located in foreign countries (Haushofer is a good example of that). But certainly not every geostrategy has advocated such. It would be more accurate to say that "geostrategy refers to foreign policy that is informed by and takes into consideration geographic constraints and the geographic distribution of resources in strategic planning." Basically, geostrategy is foreign policy that looks to geography as its principal guide, rather than ideology, history, religion, economics, or other factors (although these factor in to a certain extent). In this way geostrategy is normative (foreign policy ought to be guided by geography), analytical/descriptive (foreign policies have been shaped by geography), and predictive (foreign policy of nation X will be shaped by its geographic context). Especially in its analytical or predictive forms, geostrategy couldn't be said to be "motivated by a desire or the control of foreign geographic resources", since it's merely looking at how geography shaped or will shape a foreign policy.
And, regarding CITE vs NPOV, my understanding of NPOV policy is that it does not require the article to state neutral or objective truth. This is because no one person or view has a monopoly on truth, or can claim to know what constitutes a truly objective or neutral statement. If this were the standard, revert wars would be endless and there would be no way to judge when something truly neutral had been achieved. The first sentence of WP:NPOV policy states, "All Wikipedia articles must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), representing fairly and without bias all significant views that have been published by a reliable source." Thus, it appears to me that while NPOV does not rank above or below CITE and OR, it does contain within it the requirement that the views represented be published and reputable. And while I'm open to additions to the article based on published sources, it appears to me that Steve's lede text is not based on a published source but rather represents his own view of what constitutes and objective or neutral statement.—Perceval 02:44, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"how does the lede as written demonstrate dominantly proactive Western-originated views?" This is a secondary issue IMHO to the question of "how is the lede unclear." If we write clearly, it is much easier to discern what biases are inherent. I dont see how tidy quotes from the fifi language of a particular political culture, even if sourced, are supposed to take the place of a sensible and understandable definition.-Ste|vertigo 23:01, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still very unclear as to exactly what you mean when you call the lede "unclear" or POV. What, specifically, is unclear? What makes it POV? I'm sure it's just my limited understanding of the subject matter, but it would be helpful if you could distill your objections so that I can fully understand the nature of the dispute and help work towards a resolution. JCO312 00:38, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The lede should state what the subject is, not how others, notable as they may be (though I dont think Percy's sources are notable) have characterised it. I dont see how anyone could defend the current version, as it is not at all clear. Im not capable of comprehending the other point of view at this point. So answering Percy's comments might be a good place to start:

"my understanding of NPOV policy is that it does not require the article to state neutral or objective truth. This is because no one person or view has a monopoly on truth, or can claim to know what constitutes a truly objective or neutral statement. If this were the standard, revert wars would be endless and there would be no way to judge when something truly neutral had been achieved."

This is incorrect. Consensus gets a lot of criticism, but where its most useful is in the crafting of neutral language. It is in the spirit of NPOV that consensus shines, and moreso than the selective choosing of particular quotations. Percy in essence is arguing in defense of his particular selected quoted version of "truth" without agreeing to replace that with a consensus definition of what the topic is about.

Percy agrees that my statement is "not necessarily incorrect" but is "overly limited definition." What does he mean by "overly limited?" I like the way he replied to this point though with a constructive article-quality answer:

"Basically, geostrategy is foreign policy that looks to geography as its principal guide, rather than ideology, history, religion, economics, or other factors (although these factor in to a certain extent).

This might be usable as a lede sentence, though I have a problem with the fact that it rests upon a couple of notions; since when is geography a "principle guide?" that is separate from other noted factors (which hes listed). Centrally, any policy that deals with geography will, because its connected to a national agenda (as that second paragraph says (added as part of a consensus by the way) ), be intertwined with some ideology. So while according to the academic ideal, geostrategy is a clean science divorced from all vice, desire, and avarice, in reality it is a component within a nationalist agenda —which is largely concerned with the geography of others, not of itself. -Ste|vertigo 03:04, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps we can work off Percevals definition from above. Apparently we now agree that geostrategy is not simply limited to a type of foreign policy motivated by the desire to control the resources of other nations. How would you, Stevertigo, alter Percy's definition to achieve an acceptable compromise? JCO312 04:52, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(interjecting) I dislike this terse characterisation of what I wrote and what "we now [apparently] agree" to. Ive made specific compromises and have made specific criticisms, so Id like to first hear some feedback from that point. Working from Perceval's definition is a good next step, but it would be better to work on them both in tandem. -Ste|vertigo 06:40, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to say here that I agree with Steve that geostrategy cannot be divorced from a nationalist agenda, which is why, as Steve notes, the lede text already states that geostrategists "approach geopolitics from a nationalist point-of-view." By "principle guide" I simply meant that geography has the predominant weight out of all the various factors that shape foreign policy. I don't think anyone, anywhere claims that foreign policy can be cleanly divorced from ideology, world-view, philosophy, religion, vice, desire, avarice, etc etc. These are parts of human nature. As such, I don't believe they deserve undue special mention here, as the biases of human nature are not unique to geostrategy. Also, I think it's apparent that geostrategy is concerned with both one's own geography as well as with the geography of foreign countries. German geostrategists were upset with their borders during the interwar period and clamored for a return to the borders of 1914, which they viewed as more defensible. Meanwhile, they were obviously also concerned with the geography of the states around them, as part of Mitteleuropa.
My second interjection is that, while I too am an advocate of consensus and agree that consensus is the key tool in keeping NPOV, WP:NPOV clearly states that Verifiability and WP:OR cannot be overridden by consensus: "The principles upon which these policies are based are non-negotiable and cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, or by editors' consensus." Therefore, NPOV must rest on verifiable (i.e. citable) resources.—Perceval 06:12, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

While youre quoting a policy page, Im quoting Jimbo directly about the status of NPOV policy - not the "principles upon which these policies are based." The excerpt you chose appears to be a copycat modeled to appear on a par with the regularly-cited quote about NPOV specifically - not some "principles" mentioned in passing. Not that Jimbo is some sort of expert on the current debate, its just that NPOV (as the principle) has been at the core of why Wikipedia has worked since its inception. (It took another couple of years for CIVIL to come along as the second most fundamental principle). Consensus has worked for sake of crafting appropriate statements, and is the natural way in which NPOV and CIVIL act harmoniously. If we follow core principles 1 and 2, we are applying consensus. -Ste|vertigo 06:40, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Core principles 1 & 2" is, again, your own formulation--not Wikipedia's. I don't have a guide other than the black and white text written on the policy pages. But those policy pages are pretty explicit about the need for sources. Wikipedia:Verifiability states that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia of verifiability not truth. I don't know how much clearer that could get. Consensus is certainly one of the best ways to arrive at NPOV. But you must remember that NPOV is not truth, NPOV is accurately representing the state of the debate--all published, reputable sides to a topic. So while you may feel that the topic itself is biased, there's not much to be done unless there's a published source giving an opposing or different point of view. I have no problems looking for such sources--indeed I already have made efforts in that direction--but we can't just make things up and redefine a topic to our liking simply because we arrived at a consensus. I agree with the Jimbo quote that NPOV is absolute and non-negotiable, but I don't think NPOV means what you believe it means.—Perceval 07:15, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cont.

Percy: "I have no problems looking for such sources--indeed I already have made efforts in that direction--but we can't just make things up and redefine a topic to our liking simply because we arrived at a consensus."

What efforts have you made which have not been conveniently weeded out by the convenient term "geostrategy." Be real. Geostrategy is academic study that advocates inappropriate cures for the problem of coveting thy neighbor's goods. You can throw particular names around, and claim that anyone who isnt in tune with these scholastic selections lacks an education, but thats basically what it is. Naturally from within the framework of academia, its not polite to be so obtuse or straightforward, but thats what it is. Im glad that on the talk page at least we can work on clarifying a definition, which youve helped immensely, but then you turn about and state that your own definition is wrong.(above) We've agree to collaborate on writing an introduction which is satisfactory to NPOV, and such an intro will not typically be open to this basic criticism. Further, just because official geostrategists dont care to define geostrategy beyond a smattering of different tersely-worded quotations, doesnt mean we have to abide by their indecision. We arent geostrategists - we are encyclopedists looking objectively at a particular strand of political science that is, at least in a modern context ("only since WWII" as you put it), tied up with energy and the demands of dominant states. Thats the water the fish swims in - a fundamental part of the description of the fishbowl. -Ste|vertigo 22:35, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On human nature as an implicit or explicit factor

Percy wrote: "by "principle guide" I simply meant that geography has the predominant weight out of all the various factors that shape foreign policy. I don't think anyone, anywhere claims that foreign policy can be cleanly divorced from ideology, world-view, philosophy, religion, vice, desire, avarice, etc etc. These are parts of human nature. As such, I don't believe they deserve undue special mention here, as the biases of human nature are not unique to geostrategy."

I agree with making the distinctions between geostrategy and other areas of political sciences clear. In that spirit I think your wording is far more successful at accomplishing clarity than both of the quotes put together. It needs some work, just as my candidate statement needed work.

On human nature: Why do we mention them at all? Is all mention of good and evil to be removed from an article on morality, law, eschatology, etc.? OF course not. For common human concepts to be omitted as simply a matter of common knowledge runs contrary to the purpose of the encyclopedia - to leave no stones unturned. I have my own interpretation of why there is this desire to use unclear language or specialist quotations rather than plain language, but I will save them for later if necessary. -Ste|vertigo 06:47, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lede

"Geostrategy is foreign policy guided principally by geographical factors, rather than by ideology, history, religion, economics, or other factors —although these factor in to a certain extent. - Percy

Geostrategy is a largely academic component within a wider national policy that seeks the control or use of particular natural resources present in foreign land —typically those related to energy (petroleum, natural gas) and raw materials. An "oil geostrategy" for example, refers to a nations' particular agenda in the arena of petroleum politics. -SV

This proposed text is erroneous. None of the geostrategist from Ratzel to Kjellen to Mahan to Mackinder advocated seizing petroleum or natural gas. When they were writing--mid-1800s to the end of WWI--petroleum deposits had just been discovered in the middle east (1908) and coal was still the primary energy sources for the world (as it would remain until mid-1950s). From what I've read, they did not factor in control of energy resources into their geostrategic designs. The only one who really explicitly mentions gas and oil is Brzezinski, in my recollection. This is an example of why I get frustrated with your edits to the lede text--you yourself said that you haven't read any works by Mahan or Mackinder, etc, and this is where it shows.—Perceval 07:27, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I should note, however, that I've not read through enough of Haushofer's work to be able to say definitively one way or the other whether or not he wrote about seizing oil & gas. It's quite possible that he did, as I recall that Balkan countries had oil and were a field of contention between the German and Soviet armies in WWII. Still, the point remains that it would be incorrect to say that advocating control of oil & gas is typical of geostrategy, as it's only more recent strategists that have dealt with the issue.—Perceval 07:34, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Further, I feel I should point out that the first paragraph of the Defining geostratgy section already says what you want (as far as I can tell):

Academics, theorists, and practitioners of geopolitics have agreed upon no standard definition for "geostrategy." Most all definitions, however, emphasize the merger of strategic considerations with geopolitical factors. While geopolitics is ostensibly neutral, examining the geographic and political features of different regions, especially the impact of geography on politics, geostrategy involves comprehensive planning, assigning means for achieving national goals or securing assets of military or political significance.—Perceval 07:40, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Off topic

Read this please. More tomorrow. -Ste|vertigo 07:58, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I enjoy reading Chomsky—I remember picking up his book 9-11 in London when it came out, and also being approached by a journalist for an interview because I was reading Manufacturing Consent. The piece you linked seems to be saying the same thing that I did above: it was only after WWI that oil became a strategically significant issue, and that oil in the Middle East became a foreign policy concern. Regardless of the fact that Chomsky isn't talking specifically about geostrategists, it still seems to support what I said above: that it would be incorrect to say pursuit of oil is "typical" of geostrategy, because the major progenitors of the field were all writing before oil even became an issue. A quick Google search also indicates that Chomsky hasn't discussed Mahan, Mackinder, Ratzel, Kjellen, Haushofer, Spykman, Strausz-Hupe, Seversky, etc: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10]. He only begins mentioning geostrategists who were important after WWII—Kennan, Kissinger, Brzezinski.—Perceval 18:40, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Again you are making those particular assumptions about what particular people qualify as geostrategical. I pointed you to that speech because it deals with nothing but geostrategy, albeit not before WWII. Its a good thing to want to describe how strategies have changed since. It is strange that a concept which "of uncertain meaning" that "has... been avoided" is likewise so particular about who is qualified to comment on it. Looking at the geopolitics article, I fear we may be also confusing the word study with practice - the term refers not just to the formal study, but to the formal and real-world practice of material politics. How did Frederick L. Schuman use geostrategy in the article "Let Us Learn Our Geopolitics." As a translation of "Wehrgeopolitik" (military geo politics) "defense-geopolitics" or "war geopolitics," why is warfare so much an obfuscated aspect of the article's current definition? -Ste|vertigo 00:36, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, the Chomsky speech isn't about geostrategy, it's about U.S. foreign policy. Some of the topics it addresses (like oil) are considered geostrategic resources by certain writers, but Chomsky's topic isn't geostrategy and his analysis isn't a geostrategic one. He may be talking about one region of the world, but geography plays no determinant role in his analysis.
Your new lede text introduces more factually incorrert assertions:

the original definition has been expanded to include non-military aspects of world politics, related pre-WWII concepts, and economic strategies (checkbook diplomacy, dollar hegemony, globalization).

This cries out for a citation. Checkbook diplomacy and dollar hegemony are not geographic concepts in the least. Meanwhile, critics of globalization are the ones who cite globalization--not as part of geostrategy but as a reason why geostrategy is irrelevant in the post-Cold War world. This is your original research and is a result of not having read any books or articles by geostrategists in the entire eight months you've been edit warring over the definition of "geostrategy" when you could have gotten any or all of them from your local library through interlibrary loan in under two weeks.

I don't mind putting a more explicit reference to war in the lede, but what I don't want to see is more of the "Geostrategists are imperialist warmongers out to control all the world's oil and dominate the world blah blah blah" that you've been pushing.68.84.134.68 19:36, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I will restore the changes, removing the parts you mentioned. -Ste|vertigo 22:49, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Military geography strategy

You are to be commended for your work in researching the history of the term. We of course have to abide by that as a starting point. Excellent work - all I did really was integrate it into the lede, removing some of the less well written parts. Id appreciate hearing what the mediator thinks, if thats alright.-Ste|vertigo 22:59, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for my absence. I've been off for the holidays (and thus, not in my office where I typically do Wikipedia work). I have looked at the project page when I can, and I've been happy to stand back as I think that you've been engaging in very constructive dialogue, and I think that the lede is getting close to an acceptable compromise. Let's start fresh from here: what, if any, objections do either of you have to the lede as currently written? Cheers, and Merry Christmas to those of you who celebrate it, JCO312 05:15, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Uses scare quotes on the word "strategy" in the first sentence. This is not encyclopedic writing. It expresses Steve's value judgment and personal opinion.
The term "military geopolitics" is Steve's original term. He has needlessly made up this term, making a footnote for the actual terms used in the "Let Us Learn Our Geopolitics" article.
While Haushofer was not a Nazi, Steve has inserted his own opinion in a HTML comment next to Haushofer's name labeling him a Nazi. This is more of the same unencyclopedic POV pushing.
Uses "etc." to end a list in the second paragraph, which is extremely poor form, especially for text in the lede.
Removes several relevant criticisms from the lede, such as technological advance rendering geography irrelevant or essentialist focus on geography leading to skewed conclusions.
Needlessly splits definitions into two areas of the article. The lede is supposed to provide a topic overview; see Wikipedia:Lede. Steve has shunted the overview into the first section below the TOC, which is clearly against the guidelines for lede writing. The discussion of definition ought to be together in one section, and the overview ought to be in the lede.
Deletes mention of the different factors affecting the context within which the geostrategist works, and deletes the mention of distinct normative/analytical/predictive uses of geostrategy.
Under "Modern Definitions" Steve has moved what was formerly lede text into this section:

"[As with all strategies], geostrategy is concerned with matching means to ends"[4][5][6]—in this case, a country's resources (whether they are limited or extensive) with its geopolitical objectives (which can be local, regional, or global). According to Gray and Sloan, geography is "the mother of strategy."[7]

Steve here has bracketed text and made what was not a quote into a quote, out of thin air apparently. While all the other definitions in this section are one quote from one person, Steve has taken my cited text, made it into a quote, and joined it with the quote from Gray and Sloan, even though the Gray and Sloan quote isn't a definition of geostrategy, but an affirmation of the importance of geography to strategy. It makes no sense.

Essentially, the changes introduced (outside of the addition of the Gyorgi quote) have introduced no improvements, but have deleted useful content, introduced Steve's POV pushing, and confused organization against WP:Lede guidelines.—Perceval 06:39, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously I'm not going to make any changes to the lede, as I think that would put me outside of the role of being a mediator. I will say that the lede as written has problems outside of this dispute (some inappropriate commas for example).

I am confused as to why there is now a section called "Overview," as I assumed that's what we were trying to develop here. As for Percy's complaints, regarding number 3, I don't see any HTML comment next to Haushofer's name. Hopefully Stevertigo will address the remaining issues so that we can continue to work out a solution. I was incorrect about being close to a resolution, as each time the lede is changed it now seems that the similarities are becoming fewer. I'd like to see what Stevertigo has to say about Percy's individual complaints, and then, if we aren't moving any closer, I have an alternate plan that will hopefully allow us to reach consensus. JCO312 19:48, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Scare quotes are there because "strategy" in this context needs to be defined. Its not apparent what the meaning of strategy is, and the original info about the term makes it clear that "strategic" is largely synonymous with "proactive" and "military" concepts.
"military geo politics" is a direct translation of "Wehrgeopolitik" according to Google language tools. Wehr translates to "resistance" which is used in reference to "defence." "Defence" of course needs to be qualified. We have a DoD in America, for example that is often enough an offensive institution.
Father Edmund Walsh would seem to disagree with you about Karl Haushofer: "Geopolitical ideas of lebensraum, space for depth of defense, appeals for natural frontiers, balancing land and seapower, and geographic analysis of military strategy entered Hitler's thought between his imprisonment and publishing of Mein Kampf.[38] Chapter XIV, on German policy in Eastern Europe, in particular displays the influence of the materials Haushofer brought Hitler and Hess while they were imprisoned.[39]"
"Etc." is appropriately flexible at this point. You can add what specific alternate (non-military) aspects which are of interests to geostrategists. Stating that Geostrategists have some knowledge of geography (or geology) is off topic.
Removes criticisms: Feel free to re-add them, though going into those criticisms seems to require some deeper explanation thats best left in the criticism section anyway.
Percy is trying to use my own words against me by reffering to WP:LEDE, and doing so hes taken the meaning out of context. The lede does provide an overview, and the "overview" section simply expands on that. It could be retitled, but theres no contradiction between policy and how its written.
Moving the suspect quotations from lede to the quotations section was simply a compromise. If those people are worth quoting, then we can do so in the quotes section and not in the lede definition. If they are substandard quotations thats their problem, not ours.
Whoever the hell Gray and Sloan are, please quote them in a way that clarifies our understanding the subject. Thats all we ask. This argument has largely been about the inclusion of those quotes, which Percy himself assembled as a kind of group-quote. Even doing so doesnt make the usage of the word "strategy" any less... political. I like the new version, and Im glad that Percy was able to research the background on the term. Again, all Ive done is organise Percival's research in a way which I think is more clear and explanatory.-Ste|vertigo 06:41, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strategy does not need scare quotes--the strategy article can do the job of fully defining strategy. Moreover, no wikipedia article should ever begin by using scare quotes in the very first sentence. It's POV pushing and unencyclopedic. No encyclopedia would ever use scare quotes in the very first sentence of an article (save perhaps an article on scare quotes). Beyond expressing your POV, it's just plain bad writing form.
Google language tools are not a more authoritative source than a published journal article from a reputable source discussing the various translations made by scholars in the field of political science. Putting machine translation in place of expert translation is patently absurd.
Fr. Walsh--I've read his book as well--did not believe Haushofer was a Nazi and told Allied command that Haushofer ought not stand trial at Nuremburg. Haushofer's ideas certainly were used by the Nazis, and Rudolf Hess was a student of Haushofer's, but that does not make him a Nazi. Furthermore, inserting an editorial comment in the article source, even if it's hidden from normal view, is wholly unprofessional and unencyclopedic.
"Etc" is sloppy writing and shouldn't be used. It's vague rather than explicit, and does more to confuse the reader than to inform them.
The lede is supposed to provide an overview capable of standing alone. Removing several of the main criticisms from the lede text (even though they are recapitulated later at greater length in the Criticism section) weakens the lede rather than strengthening it. The lede wasn't overlong to begin with, and there seems to be no reason or logic behind their deletion.
I'm referring to WP:Lede not to use your own words against you but because it's a Wikipedia guideline relevant to our dispute. Wikipedia:Lede's third sentence states "The lead should be capable of standing alone as a concise overview of the article, establishing context, explaining why the subject is interesting or notable, and describing its notable controversies, if there are any." You've made an "overview" section and moved half of the definition discussion to the lede, which makes no sense--the lede is supposed to be the overview.
I don't know why these quotations are suddenly "suspect" or "substandard," but you should give some reason why. Both quotes--strategy as means to an end, and geography is the mother of strategy--seem wholly uncontroversial, and it's unclear why you view them as "political." Please explain.—Perceval 07:26, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

New Approach

First, in the interest of full disclosure, I edited the lede to remove an incorrectly placed comma (it was bugging me). Also, in the course of doing so I noticed what Perceval was talking about regarding the Haushofer Nazi thing. Maybe I just don't understand the purpose of such text, but if it isn't included in the article why is it necessary for it to be included at all?

Second, this back and forth between the two of you is not getting us anywhere, as there are just as many disputes now as there were at the beginning. Let me remind you that the purpose of mediation is not simply to convince the other side that you're right; for this to work you each have to be open to the idea of changing your own positions and compromising.

Now, I suggest that we take the lede line by line, and attempt to get something acceptable that way. This business of radically altering each others text isn't working, and perhaps we'll be able to isolate the issues better this way. If we're going to try this approach then I would ask that you abide by a few groundrules,

Every line that you add should be sourced, to the extent possible.
If you believe that something is POV, please explain why in as straightforward a way as possible.

To begin, I would ask that each of you suggest a first line, preferably something that trys to take into account the earlier objections that have been raised. Cheers, JCO312 16:14, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the delay JC, I was at a wedding over the New Year weekend. Happy New Year to you both. I'm not sure writing a compromise first sentence is going to work out at this particular juncture. If Steve believes that using the word 'strategy' without scare quotes is "political" then I'm not sure how one could even write an intro sentence. How can you explain geostrategy without using the word strategy?—Perceval 18:04, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Happy New Year to you both as well. Perceval, if you could offer a first sentence that would allow me to test this very general theory of mine that scarequotes around the word "strategy" is necessary. I could be wrong, but I cant imagine a usage where I am not. At the very least a second sentence would be required to define what is meant by "strategy" in context, but that too has been a sticking point for us. I dont think using a concept of universal maternity ("mother of all strategy") is particularly helpful, as Ive said before. -Ste|vertigo 00:15, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PS: the comment on Haushofer was hidden and no means readable from normal reading mode. Its interesting to read the history of the person who essentially coined the term, who did so as a largely military concept, and happened to have sort of been the political scientist behind Nazidom. If thats not interesting enough to stick a silly little comment on, I dont know what is. -Ste|vertigo 00:20, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First, please god don't call me "JC," as that's a moniker that I've been trying to escape since undergrad. Second, I hope that this new approach will be helpful, as I don't think that we are getting anywhere with this back and forth. Stevertigo, I'm not sure that I understand why the word "strategy" needs to be in quotes, but I hope that you are open to the idea of not using quotation marks. I also hope that you would be willing to propose the first sentence so that we can move from there. Happy New Year to each of you, and Cheers, JCO312 04:14, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Steve, we've already had a number of first-sentences between the two of us--supplying another one won't help. Why don't you simply explain why your current usage of strategy is political, and therefore needs scarequotes.

Re: the Nazi comment, it doesn't matter if it was hidden or not. The article is editable and therefore readable by anyone. It's patently and categorically unencyclopedic to insert your personal commentary in inline HTML quotes. It does not matter if you insert your personal opinion in visible or hidden text--neither are permissible, and as an administrator you ought not only to know this but to enforce it. The article isn't your personal area to be cute or silly. Moreover, if you read the Haushofer article, it's not an open-and-shut case that Haushofer was or was not a Nazi. Putting your own value judgment in this article, ignoring the gray areas of the issue is unacceptable behavior.—Perceval 04:55, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, I think we have been making progress here, and the article is much more suitable. The fact that we are down to arguing punctuation should be taken as a positive and not a negative.

"In geopolitics, geostrategy refers to the study and promotion of proactive "strategic" approaches —typically making use of military concepts —toward solving (or creating) matters of geopolitical conflict."

The reason strategy is in scarequotes is because its usage in the term "geostrategy" is not obvious, in that its a translation of "military (geo politics)." The original (rather strong) connection between strategy and military is not plain enough to just leave be. Scarequotes draw attention to the word and its "particular" usage in this context. -Ste|vertigo 08:10, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't share the same optimism about the state of the article. I listed a large number of problems above before JCO312's new approach, only one of which is being addressed right now. Scarequotes indicate to the reader the writer's suspicion or rejection of a term. It's the equivalent of saying "so-called" in front of the word. So when you write "...the study and promotion of proactive 'strategic' approaches..." you're essentially saying "...the study and promotion of proactive so-called strategic approaches...". You are indicating that the approaches are not actually strategic but something else. If they're something else you ought to just come out and say what they are, rather than using scarequotes. Wikipedia ledes need clarity upfront. Either geostrategy advocates strategies or it advocates something else--using "strategy" is inappropriate because it does more to obscure the meaning than to elucidate it. Finally, you haven't explained why "strategy" is a "political" word, as you said above. You just explained why strategy needs explanation.—Perceval 19:11, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think the best way would be to offer us an alternative wording to the first paragraph. We can then choose the superiour and work from there. I think the word strategy, since its used as a codeword for "military strategy" requires scarequotes. If you can show us sources which show how this basic definition has changed over time sufficiently enough to supplant the original definition, please offer them. -Ste|vertigo 00:50, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It would be preferable to simply write military strategy than to write "strategy" with scare quotes--the former is explicit where the latter does little to explain anything to the reader. Nevertheless, strategy isn't really a codeword for military strategy, as there are a number of different types of factors (political, economic, cultural) that go into a foreign policy and that are affected by geography. A straight correlation could be made between military strategy and military geography, but it would be overly limiting to equate geostrategy and military strategy. Geostrategy is more closely related to strategic geography, and strategic geography, while certainly encompassing a great deal of military considerations, is not wholly limited to military matters. It's enough to read Brzezinski's Grand Chessboard to see the political, diplomatic, economic and cultural factors that go into a geostrategy--discussion of military matters or actual use of force is scarce at best. And I have offered a first two sentences, which I think adequately capture the military aspect you're concerned about.

Geostrategy, a subfield of geopolitics, is a type of foreign policy guided principally by geographical factors as they inform, constrain, or affect political and military planning. As with all strategies, geostrategy is concerned with matching means to ends—in this case, a country's resources (whether they are limited or extensive) with its geopolitical objectives (which can be local, regional, or global).—Perceval 01:53, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The first sentence is fine, but requires that "planning" be defined. How does one make "plans" outside of international law? "Geographical factors" likewise appears to require clarification, because it doesnt connect in any way how foreign policy relates to geography. You seem to want to elevate the image of geostrategists as sort of real-world mapmakers, and on the other you want to marginalise the military aspects, but withouth any direct ties to how law defines the context. What issues are of specific interest to modern geostrategists? Oil pipelines is the first one no doubt.

Strange that youre pushing that meaningless "means to ends" quote again. Negotiation is just as much a "means to ends" —one negotiates (not strategises) to get sex from a partner, for example. Can we assert a definition that explains how political context redefines the term? It would seem to be valid to state that geostrategy has attempted to be divorced from its military meaning, where international law provides sufficient context for negotiation. If you could find some sources which describe how the geostrategy concept has changed since the end of WWII (when Haushofer's concept was translated) that would be of great help. -Ste|vertigo 22:52, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Planning does not need to be defined--the normal dictionary definition, commonsense understanding of planning is adequate. The intro text above does not make geostrategists into cartographers nor does it marginalize military aspects. I don't understand the sudden fixation on international law, which you've not brought up any other time in the last 9 months. Issues of specific interest to modern geostrategists vary widely. Brzezinski certainly does discuss oil and gas pipelines in Central Asia. But it's certainly not the key focus of his work (which you would know if you had read it), and nor is oil the principal focus of any other major geostrategists' theory (we've been over this before).

"Means to ends" is not meaningless, it's the dictionary definition of strategy, the one used by the cited UN document, the one used by academics (cited), and the military (cited). I don't think anyone has divorced strategy or geostrategy from military aspects, but I think it's patently wrong for you to try and make geostrategy 100% about military matters because it's clearly not. This is your personal opinion, which is not based on published works. I already have provided cited sources that give a decent overview of geostrategy (the Owens piece linked in the references, it's been there for months).—Perceval 01:03, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ill let our mediator comment. It appears we are running in circles - large ones, maybe, but you seem to have an agenda other than NPOV and cooperation. -Ste|vertigo 23:32, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PS: The problem of the recursive definition:

"Strategy" = planning which is outside of international law
"Planning" = the processs of forming specific strategies

Heres an attempt at something which would define context: Global geostrategic tactics vary depending on the era and context. Before WWI, geostrategies were dominated by aristocratic and Imperial concerns. Before WWII, geostrategy was tied to regional concepts. With the advent of the superpowers after WWII, geostrategy took on a global character that defined the Cold War. Western powers have largely focused on developing international law and trade, within which military strategy is marginal, and conflicts are settled peacefully. -Ste|vertigo 00:15, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your above definition of strategy is one that you made up. Strategies can fall within or without of international law, just like any foreign policy course of action can fall within or without of international law. As far as your proposed context setting paragraph, I'd be interested to know where you got this division into three distinct eras?—Perceval 21:10, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know whether what you say about Percy is true, and frankly I don't care. This is not about the editors involved, it's about the dispute, so please let's all try and stay focused on the that, and not accuse each other of having "agendas." In any event, let me offer some comments and see what you both think.

The Nazi language about Haushofer can be removed. If it's "interesting" and has a source than it should be in the article itself. As it stands, it doesn't appear that such a source exists, and it doesn't seem like the kind of issue that ought to hold this up.
The "means to an end" phrase can also be removed, and the definition simply stated. For instance, Geostrategy is concerned with matching a country's resources (whether they are limited or extensive) with its geopolitical objectives (which can be local, regional, or global).
I don't see any particular reason why the word "planning" needs to be further defined. On the other hand, it could be helpful to specify which "geographical factors" are most often implicated in geostrategy.
Finally, the military side of geostrategy appears from the citations provided by Percy to be but one of several facets of the field. As it's included in Percy's proposed definition, it is difficult for me to see how the military side has been "minimized."
Although I think a section about the definitions is an excellent idea, the first definition as currently listed is inappropriate. It is presented as if it were a quotation from a single author, when no one person actually wrote it. Rather, it is a combination of quotes and Percy's writing from his proposed lede. This could be fixed simply by removing the quotations I suppose, but it strikes me as odd as written. Likewise, perhaps the "overview" section could be included in the definition section as background for why a single agreed upon definition is difficult to come by.

Let me know how you feel about these ideas, Cheers, JCO312 00:11, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That was quick - and fair. I agree with all of those, though I hope that we can be clear about how both "strategy" and "planning" are used. I put my comment above your entry JCO, because I was working on it at the same time and its shorter. BBL Regards, -Ste|vertigo 00:24, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The "geographical factors" used to be in the lede, until Steve moved them into the "Overview" section he created out of the "Definitions" section. "human geography, political geography, economic geography, cultural geography, military geography, and strategic geography" are the different geographic factors. So, cultural geography could be the map of religious divisions, economic geography could be the map of industrially productive regions or the map of GDP per capita, military geography could be choke points or naval straits, etc. The list of specifics could go on and on, which is why I just listed the broad categories of different geographic factors with links to those articles.—Perceval 21:10, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is... The Problem With Percy: He/you will refer to some general list of geographical studies, (as above) claiming that this would have satisfied a definition of "geographical factors." On the other hand, on the Geostrategy talk page he will write brilliantly (and in plain English):

"Solving the "problem" ~~of Asia~~ was the goal, the strategy was his proposed alliances and policies (predicated on a geographic analysis of where the various great powers were and what they controlled and where they were likely to expand)."

And its understandable! "Geographic factors" refers to the "various great powers" in the region, "what they control", and "where they were likely to expand." If you just stop trying to write like some geostrategist and start writing more like an encyclopedist, we won't have any quarrel to speak of. -Ste|vertigo 01:46, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

While I'm not sure I'm qualified to comment on "the problem" with myself, I think it's quite clear that I was answering a question specific to Mahan's writings. I use generalized language in the lede because the various geostrategists write different things, in different time periods, face different threats to their nation, and advocate different policies. I know it drives you crazy when there is general or even euphemistic language in the lede, but if you want to give an overview of what is possible within the varied writings of geostrategists, then you don't want to put overly limiting language in the intro. Referencing political, military, and strategic geography certainly does cover "where the great powers are", "what they control", and if you include cultural, economic, and human geography, that gives you a good idea of "where they were likely to expand." But those different types of geographic studies are far broader than just "where the powers are" "what they control" and "where they'll expand", and it would do the article disservice to adopt such an essentialist definition. This has been my concern throughout the past nine months--whenever you write an intro text (present text included) you seem to seize on (or in some cases, invent) the most negative aspects and present them as the only acceptable language. The sub-sections on each major geostrategist are fairly clear as to the nature of what they advocate--I haven't euphemized what they wrote in their books--but I do think that using general language in the intro is the right way to go (which has been my position since the beginning of this disagreement). —Perceval 02:40, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(Nota bene: the text explaining that each geostrategic writes strategies unique to their time period, country of origin, technological level, etc was removed from the lede by Steve and put in the Overview section. No reason was given, but it still seems like it's relevant to me.)—Perceval 02:43, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As with all political theories, geostrategies are relevant principally to the context in which they were devised: the nationality of the strategist, the strength of his or her country's resources, the scope of their country's goals, the political geography of the time period, and the technological factors that affect military, political, economic, and cultural engagement.

I dunno. On the one hand there is this claim that geostrategy is adaptive to a world of different challenges, and on the other there is this claim that geostrategy is a specialised field, exclusive and noble, reserved only for the most forward thinkers. Even when those thinkers are revealed to be intellectual midgets, its still a very fifi club. -Ste|vertigo 23:10, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Being a specialized field and being adaptive to different challenges are not mutually exclusive. I have not, and I'm not aware that anyone has, made the claim that geostrategists are exclusive and noble and forward thinkers, although some have made the claim that they are intellectual midgets (see the cited Criticism section and Critical geopolitics article).

Meanwhile, most of the changes you've made to my intro text remain unexplained. The deletions and reorganization seem arbitrary at best. The substitution of expert translation of the term "geostrategy" for a google machine translation seems particularly absurd. The only two consistent objections I've seen are to "means to ends" and the Gray and Sloan quote, although you've yet to actually explain why the well-cited "means to ends" is "political" or why the Gray and Sloan quote is "unhelpful".

What I'm trying to say here is that I don't think you've made it clear what was wrong with my last version, and what the justification for radically changing that text was. If I understood what the overall aim of taking the overview out of the lede, deleting parts of the criticism, and moving the expert translations out of the definitions section into a footnote, I be better able to reach an acceptable compromise.—Perceval 01:10, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ive answered every point. The mediator would seem to agree that removing the "mother" and "means" quotes doesnt diminish it one bit. Maybe there is some other reason you want to include them, but it doesnt seem to matter at this point. -Ste|vertigo 06:12, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Steve, you've manifestly not answered every point or even explained the logic behind your ever-changing edits to the lede text. There seems to be little rhyme or reason to the changes you make each go-round. The lack of explanation has contributed greatly to my frustration.—Perceval 09:03, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's true that I think that you could both agree to remove the "means to and ends" language (Percy, I assume you would be alright with something like Geostrategy is concerned with matching a country's resources (whether they are limited or extensive) with its geopolitical objectives (which can be local, regional, or global).?) I also think that the overview section could be combined into the lede (as that seems to be a significant difference between your respective edits). JCO312 19:46, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think that opening sentence is fine, although we can probably just use commas instead of parentheses. I still think it's absurd to banish the word "strategy" from the definition of "geostrategy". Does that really make any sense? Moreover, the opening sentence above is simply a restatement of "means to ends" as "resources to objectives." Why one would be acceptable and the other not is beyond me.—Perceval 09:03, 29 January

2007 (UTC)

If that's the case than your proposed sentence is redundant, as it also had "resources and objectives" (I didn't add that, I simply removed the "means to an ends" language). And if it doesn't detract from the sentence to remove the "means to an end" bit, what's the harm? JCO312 14:49, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I added the "resources and objectives" to clarify "means to ends" when Steve objected to it previously. As I said above, I don't have a problem with the resources and objectives language--I think it's fine. But if the two are equivalent, why would one be acceptable and the other not? Removing "means to ends" doesn't necessarily detract from the sentence, but removing "strategy" does. That we cannot define geostrategy by using "strategy" and its definition is like saying you cannot define great power by using "power" and its definition. It's a nonsensical position for Steve to take.—Perceval 04:12, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still not sure why "strategic" needs to be in quotation marks, as I agree that the definition of strategy is not "planning which is outside of international law." Why a country could not engage in geostrategy within the confines of international law is beyond me. I'm also not sure why the overview section cannot be combined with the lede? JCO312 18:49, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Why a country could not engage in geostrategy within the confines of international law is beyond me." If you have lots of these, you might get the idea that international law is only for these. ;) -Ste|vertigo 22:56, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Right, but that's not an inherent limit on geostrategy as a school of thought. Geostrategy can function within international law or without it, but there's nothing in it that inherently determines its relationship with international law.—Perceval 23:01, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

break

Grand strategy might somehow need to be mentioned, but Im fine with how its at. Thats not to say that any suggested improvements Perceval has are not welcome. I still think "strategy" needs to be in quotes - not scarequotes, mind. Single quotes would work also to indicate this is a word which may have some peculiar usage. The problem I had with the exised quotes wasnt with defining "strategy" - that would be fine. The problem I had is that they didnt serve to help define "geostrategy" without adding caveats. In that context, the only problem I had with the quote was the word "matching" which is too ambiguous where it was at. Now that I think about it "means" and "ends" are problematic too. :)

I disagree with JCO that the lede and overview need to be merged. I think the balance is about right. Mind, if there were a place to define strategy, the beginning of the overview would be the place. But that quote still that ambiguous language Pandoras box in it.-Ste|vertigo 22:11, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Grand strategy could be mentioned somewhere, but geostrategy doesn't always function at the level of grand strategy. It can also function at the local/theater or regional levels. This may seem like a constant refrain at this point, but let's be careful of unnecessarily limiting the topic of geostrategy.

I've asked you above if would explain the logic behind your (current) version of the intro text, because I thought it would help me (and probably JCO as well) to understand the nature of our long-running dispute a little better--also given that you've gone through a number of proposed changes to the intro text, which were not all that similar to one another[11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18]. Could you explain the thinking behind your current version when compared to my most recent version?—Perceval 22:58, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, because my version doesnt gloss over the fact that geostrategy is a fancy way of saying someone is after your shit. -Ste|vertigo 07:23, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I should have expected a flippant answer. This has been my frustration since the beginning. "[G]eostrategy is a fancy way of saying someone is after your shit" is your personal criticism of geostrategy. I acknowledge that this has been your position and aim for the intro since day one. I think we have a very fundamental disagreement over what NPOV and OR are. If you can give a more detailed explanation, change-for-change, why your intro text improves upon the old one and why the changes are necessary I would really appreciate it. Otherwise, I think we'll be beyond mediation.—Perceval 23:03, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If strategising over how to use other peoples goods is in fact what it is, then its a description - not a criticism. How is "matching" any more usefully descriptive? -Ste|vertigo 03:33, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Means" are resources and capabilities you possess. Strategy is the plan that matches your capabilities to the ends you hope to achieve. It's not about how to use other people's goods, it's about how to use the things you have to get where you want to be. Once again, would you be so kind as to give a run down of the differences between your current intro/overview text and my last intro/definitions text? It would be a great help if you could explain the logic behind the rather large number of differences, and would help me in understanding why they're necessary. Thanks.—Perceval 20:22, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Steve, you've been active for the past ten days. If you ignore the RfM instead of participating, I'm going to go back to a version of the page without the errors you've introduced.—Perceval 03:34, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]