Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Geostrategy

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

message: 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)
thread_title:  nothing quite like that 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)

text:  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)
thread_title:  My understanding of your dispute 

message: :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)
thread_title:  Cont. 

message: 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)
thread_title:  On human nature as an implicit or explicit factor 

message: "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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Lede