Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2009-07-06/War of the Pacific

Where is the dispute?
Talk:War of the Pacific

Who is involved?
A short list of the users involved, for example;


 * User:Keysanger
 * User:Likeminas
 * User:Arafael
 * User:MarshalN20

What is the dispute?
The dispute is in regards as to whether the alliance between Peru and Bolivia was defensive or offensive.

User:Keysanger believes that the alliance was offensive. He claims that the alliance was offensive (without reliable sourcing). Additionally, he has proven to be blatantly breaking various Wikipedia policies:
 * WP:OR: "I don't need any proof, because I use the source of the pact."
 * WP:GAME: Sent a series of active discussions into the archives page; WP:Good Faith could not be assumed as he is obviously experienced at archiving pages and did not move the active discussion into the archives by mistake as his following contribution demonstrates (Had he done the deletion of active discussions by mistake, the next thing that he would have done would have been to bring back the active discussions; but he did something else instead).
 * NPOV & WP:Good Faith: "That don't change the fact that that is what they say." With this statement he shows distrust (No good faith) for the sources that claim the alliance was defensive, and brings in a "POV problem" by claiming something to be POV without providing reliable sources that certify his opinion.

The rest of us (User:Likeminas, User:Arafael, User:MarshalN20) have provided a series of reliable sources from Peru, Bolivia, and Chile claiming that the alliance was defensive. Among the last surviving sources are:
 * Republic of Chile. Foreign Ministry. Archive 1884: "Copia Tratado de Alianza Defensiva Perú-Bolivia (1873)" (Translated: "Copy of Defensive Alliance Peru-Bolivia").
 * Read in Chilean newspaper : "Perú (quien intervino producto de un tratado defensivo..." (Translated: "Peru (who got involved as a result of a defensive treaty...").

For some reason, the rest of the sources (Mainly from Peru and Bolivia, and some other neutral sources) have been deleted. I would like to assume good faith, but there apparently was a major edit war between User:Keysanger, User:Arafael, and (to a lesser extent) User:Likeminas. Sources were apparently deleted in the process. With all fact and sincerity of the case, I've just barely gotten involved into this matter after User:Arafael contacted me. Sadly, after seeing the heavy non-NPoV of User:Keysanger, I chose sides and agreed with User:Likeminas and User:Arafael.

These are the sources I have found further verifying the defensive alliance (They're in English, for your convenience):
 * History of the Latin-American nations By William Spence Robertson:
 * New York Times: "The defensive treaty of 1873 between Peru and Bolivia" (First column).
 * A history of Peru By Clements Robert Markham: "The Chileans used this purely defensive treaty, by which arbitration is provided for before there can be a casus foederis, as a pretext for war."
 * CHILE, PERU AND THE TREATY OF 1929: THE FINAL SETTLEMENT by Ronald Bruce St John: "Peru was honour bound under the terms of an 1873 treaty of defensive alliance to join the conflict on the side of Bolivia."

We have tried to peacefully deal with User:Keysanger, but tensions escalated at the point when he threatened to re-start a war (Not sure if edit war or hypothetical conflict):
 * "I promise you, you will ignite the war again if you try to coerce my freedom to cooperate with Wikipedia."
 * To which I replied:

But instead of understanding why it was wrong of him to threaten to "ignite the war again," he has gone into a rampage of posts claiming to be the victim of Ad hominem attacks and other such things.

What would you like to change about this?
I would like for the matter of the alliance to be defined once and for all. I would like for the contributors of this project to answer:


 * Was the Peru-Bolivia alliance defensive or offensive?

How do you think we can help?
Talk:War_of_the_Pacific: Start here. This is where the main "heavy" discussion begins on the topic.

Look in search engines for more sources (if you wish).

Mediator notes
The conclusion of the mediation was as follows:
 * 1) The treaty was officially titled defensive.
 * 2) The treaty was viewed by Chile as a menace (offensive to it).
 * 3) Professional opinion is split on whether the alliance was solely defensive or whether it was offensive and defensive.