Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 01:27, 18 July 2009

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Peru Top‑importance This article is supported by WikiProject Peru. This project provides a central approach to Peru-related subjects on Misplaced Pages. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.PeruWikipedia:WikiProject PeruTemplate:WikiProject PeruPeru Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. WikiProject Peru To-do: edit history watch purge Assess and prioritise articles (log) Check for copyvios at Special:Contributions/Priscilla D, tag as {{Db-copyvio}} where appropriate Create: Expand: new articles; top importance articles FAC / FLC: Peru national football team GAN: Merge requests: Amazonas before the Inca Empire, Chachapoyas culture Review: Shining Path, Universitario de Deportes Translate: National University of San Marcos Work on Lima, the current article improvement drive Wikify: articles needing attention Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Chile High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Chile, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Chile on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChileWikipedia:WikiProject ChileTemplate:WikiProject ChileChile High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Military history: South America This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status: Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met Associated task forces: /  South American military history task force

War of the Pacific received a peer review by Misplaced Pages editors, which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.

A fact from this article was featured on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the On this day section on February 14, 2005, February 14, 2006, and April 5, 2009.

BOLD

1) No one had said WHY the new map is wrong.

I say the map File:Pacifico1879.svg is wrong

• because the showed Chile-Bolivia doesn't fit the real border after the war
• because Argentina has a shorter typesize
• because the map doesn't have any sources for the border Peru-Bolivia

the new map in contrast is better because:

• use the Generic Mapping Tools border database
• use the same typesize for all country names
• use File:Departamento moquegua 1865.JPG and File:MPazSoldan.1888-2xChile.djvu to set the Borders in the Puna de Atacama and Bolivia-Peru (the border in Puna de Atacama was contested and is shadowed)

Please say WHY do you find your map better! (Keysanger.)

I agree with whoever wrote this. The new map is better. However, it could and should be improved. It has two major errors:

1. It lacks the parallels. If you haven't noticed, this war heavily revolves around the parallels as one of the war disputes and border peace treaties. 2. The "Chilean territories before war" color looks confusing. I don't know if it is pointing to Argentina or to Chile. Also, there is no explanation if whether the territories in brown were disputed between Argentina and Chile (which I think they were).-- (talk) 02:51, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

• File:Wotp.en.svg

- Only Chile has "black color" boundary after war

- Puna de Atacama area in File:MPazSoldan.1888-2xChile.djvu is greater than File:Wotp.en.svg

- It lacks the parallels

- Ok. use the Generic Mapping Tools border database

- Ok. has many cities and rivers

• File:Pacifico1879.svg

- "because the showed Chile-Bolivia doesn't fit the real border after the war".

It is a personal opinion

The border was verified by many colaborators in

- "because Argentina has a shorter typesize".

Then increase it.

- "because the map doesn't have any sources for the border Peru-Bolivia".

Incorrect. Please see Para establecer el límite entre Perú y Bolivia es ha utilizado este mapa: Departamento_moquegua_1865.JPG —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arafael (talk • contribs) 14:33, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

It isn't a personal opinion. It is the Generic Mapping Tools border database. Many colaborators is warrant for nothing, if they don't use a good method. And they didn't use it. The today boundary in Puna de Atacama is actually very diferent as showed in the "Many colaborators" map.

The Bolivia-Argentina Boundary was modified after the war, but not directly because the war, it was complicated, Tarija, etc.. Therefore we can't use the black line, reserved for the "after war and because of war boundary". I used red. Your "Many colaborators" map also makes a diference between the Chile-Peru-Bolivia boundary (black line and no line) and the Peru-Bolivia and Bolivia-Argentina boundary (no line). Why is this method good in the collaborators-map and wrong in the GMT-map? Can you explain that?

Then increase it.: I increased the typesize of the "ARGENTINA" string and made another map. So, I did it. Accept it.

About the sources of the "Many colaborators" map File:Pacifico1879.svg:

In the description page we read:

Basado en

We follow the link and find File:Borders-Bolivia-Chile-Peru-Before and after Pacfic War of 1879 SP.png and there is finally the source of the map: File:Borders_Chile_1879_and_2006.png. But there is the note:

This map is erroneus, use Image:Borders-Bolivia-Chile-Peru-Before and after Pacfic War of 1879 SP.png

So, someone shares partially my opinion about the map. But there are three other links:

1. http://grflib.svnt.com/banners/personales2.gif
2. File:Guerra-del-pacifico-01-a.svg
3. File:Departamento_moquegua_1865.JPG

The first link leads to a private website, there is no map.

The second link leads to Guerra-del-pacifico-01-a.svg. I took the colors from this map, but the map shows only the boundary before the war, and the Puna the Atacama zone is, I think, to big southwards.

The third map is the same I used to define the Peru-Bolivia Boundary before the war.

So, allegedly both maps should be the same. They are not, because the File:Pacifico1879.svg doesn't show the Rio Loa (and many others), also it doesn't show a scale.

All things considered, I repeat:

• because the showed Chile-Bolivia doesn't fit the real border after the war
• because Argentina and Bolivia has a shorter typesize
• because the map doesn't have any sources for the border Peru-Bolivia
• because it doesn't show the scale

the new map in contrast is better because:

• use the Generic Mapping Tools border database
• use the same typesize for all country names
• use File:Departamento moquegua 1865.JPG and File:MPazSoldan.1888-2xChile.djvu to set the Borders in the Puna de Atacama and Bolivia-Peru (the border in Puna de Atacama was contested and is shadowed)

I think, this issue is finished. If anyone wants, we can call a Mediation about. --Keysanger (talk) 23:09, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

The improvements of the map are much better now. The color of Chile is now more visible, and the parallels have been noted. However, if some opposition is still going on about the map, please do post your comments and state your opinion why the map could still be wrong. In the meantime, thanks should go to Keysanger's contribution in this case.--//MarshalN20\\ (talk) 14:10, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

SECRET

We agree that there were at least 3 Parties: Chile, Bolivia and Peru. For these three parties apply that the Treaty was secret. So, the treaty was secret. there is no doubt about that.

What about defensive?

May be that the pact was defensiv for Bolivia and Peru. But, was defensive for Chile? No, in no way. For Chile the pact was no defensive.

Every wiki editor can write "the pact was secret" because it was.

Please explain me WHY the pact was defensive for Chile, before you delete my text.

--Keysanger (talk) 22:22, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

You seem to be a little agitated, so please read this message as a peaceful statement. Surely, it is important to mention that Chile (now pay attention to this) misunderstood the "secret treaty" (You're right in saying that secret is standard) as aggresive. The word misunderstood is a key word whenever it is associated with "aggresive" as it is incorrect to mention the defensive treaty as agressive. For, the treaty was developed between Peru and Bolivia; therefore, if Peru and Bolivia viewed it as defensive, the treaty is therefore upon the eyes of the international community as legally defensive. Any other interpretation of this treaty as non-defensive is a misunderstanding, and should always be noted as such for correctness.-- (talk) 03:00, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Let's leave our interpretations aside for a moment.

If the treaty was purely defensive from the viewpoint of Peru and Bolivia then references need to be provided stating just that. On the other hand, if the treaty was seen as secretive and/or offensive by Chile, then, the same rule applies. If we end up with both claims being verifiable by reliable sources (which I think we will) then, we should present both of them.

Likeminas (talk) 13:54, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Where in the treaty said: "is offensive" to someone?

It was a defensive treaty with an aditional article that kept it secret.

Arafael (talk) 14:44, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Let me once again re-state (and re-word) what I pointed out on my past statement. There is no way that something can be two opposites at the same time. A treaty cannot be defensive and offensive at the same time. It's an illogical statement, just like saying that something can be sweet and sour at the same time (Sweet and sour chicken, which is good, can also be only one thing at a time).

As Arafael has noted, since the treaty makes no mention of an offensive action towards any particular country, nor does it make it an aggressive statement towards a normal alliance (non-defensive); and clearly only speaks about a defensive pact: The treaty is a defensive alliance. What's more, Peru's actions during the start of the war makes it even more obvious that the treaty was defensive: Peru set the defensive alliance active only when Chile declared war upon it and Bolivia (Chile was the first country to formally declare war).

As such, since the treaty is legally a "Secret defensive alliance," any other mention of it as anything different is incorrect. Therefore, if you want to include that Chile saw the treaty as offensive, it should be noted that it was a misunderstanding from Chile.-- (talk) 15:19, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Take note, though, that I agree that the misunderstanding of Chile should be noted in the article. It is important to show that Chile made the mistake of thinking the secret defensive alliance was offensive against it.-- (talk) 15:19, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Here we go again. This article seems to be doomed to go in déjàvu cycles.

Please go back to my previous post and re-read it. I thought I was quite clear. But perhaps, I'm mistaken in my assumption so me let say this as simple as I can:

That the treaty omits to name or mention a third country (i.e.; Chile) does not mean the treaty per se was not intended or directed to a third country.

Having said that, if a reliable source explicitly states that the treaty was, indeed, seen, understood or thought as offensive, aggressive or whatever other adjective you want to call it, then, we have meet Misplaced Pages's requirement of verifiability and it should be also included for the sake of neutrality. The exact same thing goes for the defensive claim. And please note, that omissions are by no means proof of anything.

The threshold for inclusion in Misplaced Pages is verifiability, not truth—that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Misplaced Pages has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true.

In any case, I urgue all parties involved to avoid bringing their own personal opinions or theories into this discussion as they're technically worthless in terms of inclusion.

Likeminas (talk) 16:01, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

• Read in Republic of Chile. Foreign Ministry. Archive 1884: "Copia Tratado de Alianza Defensiva Perú-Bolivia (1873)"
• Read in Chilean newspaper : "Perú (quien intervino producto de un tratado defensivo..."

Arafael (talk) 22:31, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Those are good sources Arafael. We have positively established that the treaty was at least Defensive and Secret.

I've deleted (in bold) the unsourced part Chile acknowledging its awareness of the Bolivia-Peru alliance was offensive to Chile.

Likeminas (talk) 13:33, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Marschall wrote:

if Peru and Bolivia viewed it as defensive, the treaty is therefore upon the eyes of the international community as legally defensive

That is false. Iran says that they don't want to build the bomb. Do the international comunity believe that? Someone yes, others no. In our case Bolivia and Peru say the pact is defensive. That is a fact: they say that, the defensive character of the pact is not the fact.

Marschall wrote:

it is important to mention that Chile misunderstood the secret treaty as aggresive

That is your personal POV. You say misunderstood, correct is:

it is important to mention that Chile    understood the secret treaty as aggresive

I can see now that the problem is bigger than I supposed at the beginning of my contributions to this article. We have to begin with the finding of the facts and then write about the interpretation and consequences of the facts in the three countries. I considerer essential to describe following FACTS:

1. the business competition between Callao and Valparaiso after the independence of Peru and Chile, the Peruvian tax for ships entering Valparaiso
2. the Boundary treaty of 1866, 24°S and the 50%-50% tax, and his failure
3. the nationalization of the guano in Peru at the beginnig of the 1870s and the desolate Peruvian budget
4. the superiority of the Peruvian navy at the beginnig of the 1870s and the Mejillones incident (Quiroga-Putsch intent)
5. the Chilean order for two ironclads in UK
6. the secret alliance treaty, called defensive, the attempt to bring Argentina, the Peruvian fear that Brasil joints Chile.
7. the Boundary treaty of 1874 and the prohibition to raise the tax
8. the arrival of the first ironclad to Chile and the change in the foreign policy of Peru tending to pospone the Argentine sign of the alliance treaty
9. the Bolivian raise of Tax, the occupation of Antofagasta
10. the Peruvian attempt to stop the war and after the war, the change in the foreign policy of Peru tending to bring the Argentine sign of the alliance treaty

I will bring the references to this facts as soon as posible. If you think that there some issues needless, redundant or other needed facts, let us know.

Please, be cool, do not use so much bold in your comments.

Marschall: Who has said that Chile    understood the secret treaty as aggresive? . Where did you read that?

--Keysanger (talk) 12:22, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

• Read in page 252. "Storia de lla guerra d'America fra Chilì, il Perù e la Bolivia"

lo storico chileno Barros Arana dice nella sua cosidetta Historia de la Guerra del Pacifico, che era un Trattato di alleanza offensiva e difensiva. Questo può dare una idea del modo come si interpretano e riferiscono i fatti nel Chili.

Chilean historian Barros Arana said in his book History of the Pacific War, a treaty of alliance offensive and defensive. This can give an idea of how they interpret and report the facts in Chile

Arafael (talk) 13:23, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Likeminas, how have you positively established that the treaty was at least Defensive? --Keysanger (talk) 16:17, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Fairly easy Keysanger; I clicked the realiable sources provided by Arafael and read them. I suggest you do the same.

Likeminas (talk) 16:21, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

That don't change the fact that that is what they say. --Keysanger (talk) 18:28, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Keysanger, you are writing only one POV text (Bulnes). Include all POV in order to reach NPOV. Arafael (talk) 18:46, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Keysanger;

if you took your time to read the source from the Chilean Foreign Ministry archive, then, we wouldn’t be having this rather unworthy and unconstructive discussion of saying "they say that", and most importantly you wouldn't be blindly reverting other people’s edits.

As far as I can tell, sources from all sides (Peru, Chile and Bolivia) seem to agree that it was Defensive.

If you claim otherwise, then, the burden of proof is now on you.

Likeminas (talk) 19:33, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Likeminas,

I don't need any proof, because I use the source of the pact. The pact says this is a defensive alliance and I corrected your contribution ("it was a defensive pact") with they called it a defensive alliance. You have to proof that the pact was defensive and you can't do it because that is, as Arfael contribution states, (lo storico chileno Barros Arana dice nella sua cosidetta Historia de la Guerra del Pacifico, che era un Trattato di alleanza offensiva e difensiva. Questo può dare una idea del modo) come si interpretano e riferiscono i fatti nel Chili. ("how they interpret")

If you say "defensive", that is a interpretation of the history, it is not a fact and if you want to publish that in english Misplaced Pages, you have to say "Diego says it was a defensive pact". Don't get confused with the name and the content of a idea. The Hitler-Stalin Pact was officially titled the Treaty of Non-aggression between Germany and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. In reality Hitler used the pact to prepare the Operation Barbarossa, that is, the invasion of the Soviet Union. Other example: Mission Accomplished said George W. Bush. Would you write an article and say "the mission was accomplished". No!, you would write, Bush said: Mission Accomplished.

Do you actually mean that is a proof?. For God's sake!. That is any thing but a historical study of the War of the Pacific, That is a list of documents kept in the Chilean Foreign Officce. Your Italian "proof" is a proof for me: That are interpretations of the pact, says the text.

So, I think, I have explained my reasons why I reverted your changes. I apologize for my english and request you urgently to correct it if you have time for.

Arafael,

stay cool. In my last contribution to the discussion, I put a list of issues I wanted to expand. Among others I wrote:

4. the superiority of the Peruvian navy at the beginnig of the 1870s and the Mejillones incident (Quiroga-Putsch intent)

If you think that is incorrect, then explain first why do you think so. Wich issues should be assigned to an article, that is a controversial theme. I promise you, you will ignite the war again if you try to coerce my freedom to cooperate with Misplaced Pages.

By the way, the superiority of the Peruvian navy at the beginnig of the 1870s and the census of Antofagasta are not controversial. You find it overall.

May I move this discussion page to archive and open a new one?. We have advanced a lot at the last days, and the discussion is exciting but my DSL-provider will go bankrupt.

--Keysanger (talk) 10:18, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Keysanger, who in the world do you think you are? You have no right to move this ACTIVE discussion into an archive just because you feel like it. Seriously, this is a blatant example of Misplaced Pages:Gaming the system.--//MarshalN20\\ (talk) 02:51, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Continuning the discussion, all I see here from your part Keysanger is a highly biased POV. You seem to think of yourself as some sort of heroic defender, with idiotic little phrases such as: "I promise you, you will ignite the war again if you try to coerce my freedom to cooperate with Misplaced Pages." Come on gentlemen! Wake up, we're not having a "mini war of the pacific" here. Three users, Likemina, Arafael, and me (MarshalN20), all agree that the neutral third party sources (from Peru, Bolivia, and Chile) demonstrate that the alliance between Peru and Bolivia was defensive. However, it will be impossible to work with people who will only respond: "I don't need any proof, because I use the source of the pact." If you don't want to contribute to this article in a peaceful manner, please do go play your little war games elsewhere Keysanger.--//MarshalN20\\ (talk) 02, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Keysanger:

I’m afraid you do not understand how Misplaced Pages works. Or perhaps you do not want to understand it.

Look, it is a fairly simple process.

If there’s a reliable source that states (in this case) that the treaty was defensive, then, the claim that the treaty was, indeed, defensive is verifiable. Misplaced Pages not as concerned with this statement being “the truth” as much as it is concerned with it being verifiable.

Now, if you dispute the claim that the treaty was defensive, then, you need to provide another reliable source that contradicts it.

The documents from the Chilean Foreign ministry are reliable sources whether you like it or not.

Finally, you should know that your interpretations, analogies and snippy remarks won’t get you anywhere here. Only reliable sources will.

Likeminas (talk) 15:57, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

5 Pillars of Misplaced Pages (Random addition by Keysanger)

	Misplaced Pages is an encyclopedia incorporating elements of general and specialized encyclopedias, almanacs, and gazetteers. All articles must strive for verifiable accuracy: unreferenced material may be removed, so please provide references. Misplaced Pages is not the place to insert personal opinions, experiences, or arguments. Original ideas, interpretations, or research cannot be verified, and are thus inappropriate. Misplaced Pages is not a soapbox; an advertising platform; a vanity press; an experiment in anarchy or democracy; an indiscriminate collection of information; or a web directory. It is not a newspaper or a collection of source documents; these kinds of content should be contributed to the Wikimedia sister projects.
	Misplaced Pages has a neutral point of view, which means we strive for articles that advocate no single point of view. Sometimes this requires representing multiple points of view, presenting each point of view accurately, providing context for any given point of view, and presenting no one point of view as "the truth" or "the best view". It means citing verifiable, authoritative sources whenever possible, especially on controversial topics. When a conflict arises regarding neutrality, declare a cool-down period and tag the article as disputed, hammer out details on the talk page, and follow dispute resolution.
	Misplaced Pages is free content that anyone may edit. All of Misplaced Pages's text is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Sharealike 3.0 Unported License (CC-BY-SA); much of it is also licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL). It may be distributed or linked accordingly. Recognize that articles can be changed by anyone and no individual exclusively controls any specific article; therefore, any writing you contribute can be mercilessly edited and redistributed at will by the community. Do not infringe on copyright or submit work licensed in a way incompatible with Misplaced Pages's licensing.
	Misplaced Pages has a code of conduct: Respect your fellow Wikipedians even when you may not agree with them. Be civil. Avoid conflicts of interest, personal attacks and sweeping generalizations. Find consensus, avoid edit wars, follow the three-revert rule, and remember that there are 6,937,083 articles on the English Misplaced Pages to work on and discuss. Act in good faith, never disrupt Misplaced Pages to illustrate a point, and assume good faith on the part of others. Be open and welcoming.
	Misplaced Pages does not have firm rules besides the five general principles presented here. Be bold in editing, moving, and modifying articles. Although it should be the aim, perfection is not required. Do not worry about making mistakes. In most cases, all prior versions of articles are kept, so there is no way that you can accidentally damage Misplaced Pages or irretrievably destroy content.

Third opinion

well done Marschall!

But what you told there is again not the truth. You wrote:

one user who claims an alliance pact to be aggressive (with no use of a reliable source)

I think, you mean me, but I didn't say the pact was aggressive. I said/say, that defensive/ofensive are interpretations of the pact and request to put it as that, interpretations: they called it defensive. I repeat for the third opinion my arguments given to Likeminas:

I don't need any proof, because I use the source of the pact. The pact says this is a defensive alliance and I corrected your contribution ("it was a defensive pact") with they called it a defensive alliance. You have to proof that the pact was defensive and you can't do it because that is, as Arfael contribution states, (lo storico chileno Barros Arana dice nella sua cosidetta Historia de la Guerra del Pacifico, che era un Trattato di alleanza offensiva e difensiva. Questo può dare una idea del modo) come si interpretano e riferiscono i fatti nel Chili. ("how they interpret")

If you say "defensive", that is a interpretation of the history, it is not a fact and if you want to publish that in english Misplaced Pages, you have to say "Diego says it was a defensive pact". Don't get confused with the name and the content of a idea. The Hitler-Stalin Pact was officially titled the Treaty of Non-aggression between Germany and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. In reality Hitler used the pact to prepare the Operation Barbarossa, that is, the invasion of the Soviet Union. Other example: Mission Accomplished said George W. Bush. Would you write an article and say "the mission was accomplished". No!, you would write, Bush said: Mission Accomplished.

Do you actually mean that is a proof?. For God's sake!. That is any thing but a historical study of the War of the Pacific, That is a list of documents kept in the Chilean Foreign Officce. Your Italian "proof" is a proof for me: That are interpretations of the pact, says the text.

About your next statement:

while three other users (with reliable sources) who claim it to be defensive

I state only that we have to take care not to insult the intelligence of other people.

--Keysanger (talk) 12:47, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

"I don't need any proof, because I use the source of the pact." This statement is a clear example of WP:OR, which is a rule you're breaking. You cannot simply interpret something upon your point of view. As of now, you have accepted that Peru and Bolivia saw the alliance as defensive; and that Peru, Bolivia, and Chile accepted the pact as a secret alliance. However, the main point of argument remains when you claim that Chile saw the alliance as offensive and not defensive.--//MarshalN20\\ (talk) 14:34, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Nonetheless, once a reliable source is provided from the Chilean Ministry of Foreign Affairs, which is of "restricted" information regarding the War of the Pacific, you deem it as unreliable because you claim it to be a "list of documents." In that particular document you wish to ignore, it clearly presents that the Peru-Bolivia alliance was defensive. In other words, the Chilean government agreed that the Peru-Bolivia alliance was defensive. How exactly is this an insult to intelligence?--//MarshalN20\\ (talk) 14:34, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Keysanger:

I’m afraid you do not understand how Misplaced Pages works. Or perhaps you do not want to understand it.

Look, it is a fairly simple process.

If there’s a reliable source that states (in this case) that the treaty was defensive, then, the claim that the treaty was, indeed, defensive is verifiable. Misplaced Pages not as concerned with this statement being “the truth” as much as it is concerned with it being verifiable.

Now, if you dispute the claim that the treaty was defensive, then, you need to provide another reliable source that contradicts it.

The documents from the Chilean Foreign ministry are reliable sources whether you like it or not.

Finally, you should know that your interpretations, analogies and snippy remarks won’t get you anywhere here. Only reliable sources will.

Likeminas (talk) 15:58, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Ad Hominem

Likeminas, Marshal,

you continue to ignore my arguments and instead use Ad hominem.

Under the title Continuning the discussion Marshall contributed with :

• Keysanger is a highly biased POV
• Come on gentlemen! Wake up
• You seem to think of yourself as some sort of heroic defender with idiotic little phrases
• please do go play your little war games elsewhere

Likeminas violates the Misplaced Pages:Assume good faith with I’m afraid you do not understand how Misplaced Pages works. Or perhaps you "do not want to understand it".

That aren't the appropriate terms for for a discussion under wikipedians. I am not accustomed to that.

Please, stop it, thank you. --Keysanger (talk) 21:08, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

You're taking my phrases out of context in order to benefit your own strange little POV. Now, about Likeminas, he has been the one that has given you the best Misplaced Pages:Assume good faith throughout this whole discussion, and yet you accuse him of breaking that when he also agrees that you're taking things overboard with your own Original Research and are gaming the system (Read WP:OR, and Misplaced Pages:Gaming the system). I'll repeat my words again: You're not a heroic defender of Chile, we're not going to have a "mini war" (as you threatened in your past post), and we're most certainly not going to stand for weak referenced POV to be included in an article that has been heavily improved through the peaceful collaboration of several users.--//MarshalN20\\ (talk) 19:02, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

You continue attacking me :

• Please don't spam the talk page with repetitive discussions

I see you have problems to strike the right note. Please, inform yourself about the Misplaced Pages:Civility. Thank you Marshal, --Keysanger (talk) 19:19, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Lol. I find it amusing that you're Wikihounding me, and continue to game the system in order to ignore the discussion concerning the defensive alliance. Oh, and please don't try to teach me about civility; I've had enough of that in the past and have not done nothing uncivil as of right now.--//MarshalN20\\ (talk) 21:03, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Secret

Do you agree that the pact was secret regards Chile?. Please answer this question without personal attacks. --Keysanger (talk) 21:14, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

The pact was secret to all nations in the planet, except for Peru and Bolivia. There was no specific nation targeted. Why are you trying to make Chile seem a victim?--//MarshalN20\\ (talk) 19:46, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Do you affirm that Argentina was not informed about the pact? Do you have reliable sources for? --Keysanger (talk) 20:37, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Argentina was notified of the secret alliance only after Chile and Bolivia began to increment on their border disputes. Prior to that, only Peru and Bolivia knew about the alliance. It was secret to Brazil, Colombia, Ecuador, Venezuela, Mexico, USA, Great Britain, France, Russia, Mongolia, China, Honduras, etc. Chile was not targeted.--//MarshalN20\\ (talk) 21:21, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Was Argentina notified of the secret alliance only after Chile and Bolivia began to increment on their border disputes, or was intended in the text of the pact to invite other countries? --Keysanger (talk) 19:10, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Was Argentina notified of the secret alliance only after Chile and Bolivia began to increment on their border disputes, or was intended in the text of the pact to invite other countries? --Keysanger (talk) 22:54, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

List of Likeminas and Marshal arguments

I will bring forward your arguments as I understand it.

1. (Marshal's 1.) Surely, it is important to mention that Chile (now pay attention to this) misunderstood the "secret treaty" (You're right in saying that secret is standard) as aggresive.
2. (Marshal's 2.) if Peru and Bolivia viewed it as defensive, the treaty is therefore upon the eyes of the international community as legally defensive. Any other interpretation of this treaty as non-defensive is a misunderstanding, and should always be noted as such for correctness.
3. (Likeminas 1.) If the treaty was purely defensive from the viewpoint of Peru and Bolivia then references need to be provided stating just that. On the other hand, if the treaty was seen as secretive and/or offensive by Chile, then, the same rule applies. If we end up with both claims being verifiable by reliable sources (which I think we will) then, we should present both of them.
4. (Marshals 3.) since the treaty makes no mention of an offensive action towards any particular country, nor does it make it an aggressive statement towards a normal alliance (non-defensive); and clearly only speaks about a defensive pact: The treaty is a defensive alliance.
5. (Marshals 4.) since the treaty is legally a "Secret defensive alliance," any other mention of it as anything different is incorrect. Therefore, if you want to include that Chile saw the treaty as offensive, it should be noted that it was a misunderstanding from Chile

Are that your arguments? Do you want to bring forward others? Do you want to change some of that?. Please answer this question without personal attacks. --Keysanger (talk) 22:24, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

No. There is not more than one argument. Only one solid argument stands: The Peruvian and Bolivian alliance was defensive because several (more than 1) reliable sources claim it to be defensive. Chilean, Peruvian, and Bolivian sources claim it to be defensive. Under Misplaced Pages policy, when the majority of the reliable sources agree on something, that should be taken into consideration as the most accurate response to the problem.--19:19, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Now I ask, what is your argument?--//MarshalN20\\ (talk) 19:19, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Analysis

1. Misplaced Pages is not there to approve or disapprove (misunderstood/understood) the "Chilean" interpretation of the pact.
2. The conditional "if" tries to explain why the pact was defensive. That is original research.
3. Sources are to be considered, I accept it. Let me say later more about Likeminas's reasons.
4. Marshal tries again to "explain" why the pact is defensive. That is original research.
5. If the treaty is legally defensive, says Marshal. He means, I suppose so, the pact says "it is defensive". Then, OK, we write that: The pact was called defensive. That is what I want.

I think that Marshal's arguments are beside the point. I don't know what he means with "Chile", "Peru" or "Boliva". In every country there are a lot of institutions and persons that have different opinions about a issue at least in democracy. Marshal, would you be so kind to explain (a little bit) in-depth your arguments?

1. Do you think that you can explain us why the pact is defensive?
2. Do you think that the pact is legally defensive because the source says it?

Likeminas has a strong argument: if a reliable source says it, we have to accept it. I accept it. But, as in every article we have to considerer:

1. how reliable is the source
2. what says the source
3. how do we identify the source for the reader.

I want to engross the thoughts as soon as posible.

Please, comment this questions without personal attacks. --Keysanger (talk) 22:24, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm not even going to bother discussing this section. This is essentially a repetition of the above discussion. Please don't spam the talk page with repetitive discussions, Keysanger.--//MarshalN20\\ (talk) 19:20, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Likeminas, Marshal Arafael:

Marshal abandoned () the thesis 1), 2), 4), and 5). This was indefensible , but anyway, thank you Marshal for your sincerity.

My argument is that a pact, like a knife, is intrinsically neither defensive nor offensive, neither good nor bad, but can be interpreted as such according to circumstances. I think that Mexico could have interpret any Peru-Bolivia pact as defensive because it is far away, but Brasil could have interpret it as aggressive because of the vicinity. And that, independent of the text of the pact.

Now and at this point, I agree Likeminas selective about references.

We can inform the reader about interpretations of the pact provided that the reader realize that are that, interpretations of the pact. And the first reference is, of course, the pact self: The pact was called defensive. That is valid also for any other source. I cite again the source contributed by Arafael:

lo storico chileno Barros Arana dice nella sua cosidetta Historia de la Guerra del Pacifico, che era un Trattato di alleanza offensiva e difensiva. Questo può dare una idea del modo come si interpretano e riferiscono i fatti nel Chili.

(Bold by Keysanger)

I agree to cite references. I disagree to confuse the pact with interpretations of the pact and I disagree to use statistical methods to give a "average" of "pact-defensivity" (!).

Thank you for your interest in our work. --Keysanger (talk) 21:41, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

No. My "thesis" (They're not even "thesis"), more accurately my statements explaining why the defensive alliance stance is the correct one, have not been abandoned. They are not the root of the argument, and they have never been the root of the argument. They have always been explanations, and they stand to explain why it's logical that a defensive alliance is a defensive alliance until the end. There is no proof from your part that the alliance was ever aggressive against Chile.--//MarshalN20\\ (talk) 00:21, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

There can be no "circumstance interpretation" on something that is clearly defined and was clearly used as a defensive alliance. Peru and Bolivia were not the first countries to officially declare war; Chile was the first nation to officially declare war. Moreover, further clarifying the alliance to be defensive, Peru entered the War of the Pacific under the clauses of the defensive alliance (to protect the sovereignty of Bolivia's territories).--//MarshalN20\\ (talk) 00:21, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

The idea that the alliance was offensive towards Chile is an error. It is one of the mistakes in part of the Chilean government that led them to declare official war. Obviously, as the article explains, Peru was not ready for war and sought to find a peaceful solution to the conflict (especially after the possible Argentine alliance failed). Neither Peru or Bolivia were in a position to lead an "offensive" to Chile; the War of the Pacific can be easily summed up as Peru and Bolivia defending against an effective invading Chile (With some minor, rarely succesful counter-attacks in part of the allies). This mistake that the Peru-Bolivia alliance was offensive is apparently still ongoing. However, once again, it is an error. Misplaced Pages is not a place where errors should be mentioned as facts, especially if no reliable third-party sources can be found claiming the alliance to be offensive.--//MarshalN20\\ (talk) 00:21, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

So, I believe every one has exposed his arguments. Now, I ask you: Do you agree to write "some authors interpret the pact as defensive" and then to add the refernces you found? --Keysanger (talk) 19:07, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

No.--//MarshalN20\\ (talk) 21:04, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Do you have a proposal to resolve the question? --Keysanger (talk) 11:28, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

It's the simple response everyone has been arguing thus far. Follow what the reliable sources say: The alliance between Peru and Bolivia was purely defensive.--//MarshalN20\\ (talk) 02:20, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

sources supporting the other side

Donald E. Worcester and Wendell G. Schaeffer, "The Growth and Culture of Latin America", New York, Oxford University Press, 1956, 963 pages. Page 706:

In 1873, fearing the consecuences of taking action against Chile, Peru and Bolivia signed a defensive-offensive alliance

Alfred Barnaby Thomas, Profesor of History, University of Alabama,"Latin America, A History", The Macmillian Company, New York, 1956, 800 pages. Page 450:

This rivaliry , straining the relations of the two countries, led Pardo to sign and offensive and defensive alliance with Bolivia in 1873, the latter being also disturbed by Chiles aggresiveness

Charles de Varigny, La Guerra del Pacifico page 18 here

Chile vacilaría aún más si Bolivia, firmando un tratado de alianza ofensiva y defensiva con el Perú, podía poner sobre las armas los efectivos militares y las fuerzas navales de esta nación. Un tratado de esta naturaleza fué precisamente la condición que puso Boliyia para aceptar la aventura que el Perú le proponía. Se iniciaron negociaciones y quedó firmado el Tratado, que se convino en mantener secreto, con el fin de proporcionar al Perú la ocasión de ofrecer su mediación, no revelándolo sino en caso de que Chile rechazase esta mediación y declarase la guerra.

Gonzalo Bulnes, "Chile and Peru, The causes of the War of 1879" page 57 and 58

The Treaty menaces Chile … Never was Chile in greater peril, nor has a more favourable moment been elected for reducing her to the mere leavings that interested none of the conspirators. The advantage to each of them was clear enough. Bolivia would expand three degrees on the coast; Argentina would take possession of all our eastern terrisories to whatever point she liked; Peru would make Bolivia pay her with the salitre region. The synthesis of the Secret Treaty was this: opportunity: the disarmed condition of Chile; the pretext to produce conflict: Bolivia: the profit of the business: Patagonia and the salitre.

Diego Barros Arana, parte 1, capitulo III pag. 31

Sea de ello lo que se quiera, el hecho es que el 6 de febrero de 1873 se firmaba en Lima un tratado secreto de alianza ofensiva i defensiva, por el cual ambas partes contratantes se comprometian a marchar unidas contra cualquier enemigo esterior que amenazase su independencia, su soberanía, o su integridad territorial.

Essentially, all of the sources you provide, with the exception of Bulnes (whose excerpt you provide is a biased analysys that is purely his POV), describe the alliance as "Defensive and Offensive."--//MarshalN20\\ (talk) 02:32, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

However, I challenge two of the sources you provide as unreliable for this matter. First, Gonzalo Bulnes, for in his excerpt it can be seen that he is being completely biased and providing his own POV on the matter. Second, Charles de Varigny, speaks of "Peru proposing Bolivia an adventure," which is quite an exceptional claim, and then goes on to mention that the treaty was made in secret in order for Peru to act as mediator of a Bolivia-Chile conflict (which is another unreferenced exceptional claim). The rest of the sources look reliable.--//MarshalN20\\ (talk) 02:32, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

So now that you have provided sources for your statement, with the exception of the two I have mentioned above, I think that now the discussion is taking a more serious turn where discussion can actually be based on reliable sources and not opinion from both sides of the argument.--//MarshalN20\\ (talk) 02:32, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you: is purely his POV, but I extend it for all the interpretations of the treaty.

I wonder every time about your views. You don't hesitate to show the Yellow journalism of "La Razon" of Callao or the list of documents kept in the closet of the Foreign Affairs in Santiago as "reliable" sources or saying that 96 bytes for a citation are too much text for the article and simultaneously try to undermine Gonzalo Bulnes's authority.

Gonzalo Bulnes' work is considered "The classic narrative of the War of the Pacific" by the "The Cambridge history of Latin America" of Leslie Bethell, and that is a academic book and her statement is done within a academic context, within a comparison of the study sources.

If you are looking for the definitive, absolute answer to the question about the aggressivenes of the treaty, you have already found it: There are not such answer. Gonzalo Bulnes and Mariano Paz Soldan and Jorge Besadre interpret it in own vein. That is it. We don't have to reinvent the reality to fit our ideology. We have to reproduce a neutral spectrum of the today knowledge.

You don't have to believe me, you can read the Falklands war, Cenepa war, Palestina or any conflict where two views of a fact are struggling. We shouldn't try to find the definitive truth in Misplaced Pages. We should let that for the history.

Now, considering _all_ the interpretations of the treaty and taking the discussion seriously and trying to reach a consensus on the issue, I think you will agree with me about following facts:

1. the pact was called officially defensive
2. the pact was interpreted as defensive but also as offenssive
3. the pact was one of the reasons of war adduced by Chile
4. the pact encouraged Daza to provoke Chile
5. the abrogation of the pact was one of the Chilean conditions during the Lackawamma conference
6. the pact was secret
7. the secret clause is considered in all views as negative (I mean Besadre and Mariano Paz Soldan, the Chileans anyway)
8. it is controversial when Chile knew from the pact
9. Argentina was the other country scheduled to enter the pact and wanted to to so initially but she didn't

Your english is better than mine. Can you write a draft?

--Keysanger (talk) 11:32, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

"I wonder every time about your views. You don't hesitate to show the Yellow journalism of "La Razon" of Callao or the list of documents kept in the closet of the Foreign Affairs in Santiago as "reliable" sources or saying that 96 bytes for a citation are too much text for the article and simultaneously try to undermine Gonzalo Bulnes's authority."

1)I already mentioned in a previous post that "La Razon" should be used with a certain degree of care, just as with Gonzalo Bulnes. In the case where "La Razon" is used, a Bolivian historian is giving his opinion on the matter. 2)I don't think you've ever been to the Foreign Affairs office in Santiago to determine it is a "closet document." And you're not a Chilean congressmen to determine the document as unofficial. A document from the government of Chile is what it is, and what it says is highly important. 3)I've worked closely on a couple of GA Reviews for articles, participated in one FA discussion, and from those two prior actions I can tell with all certainty that the current citation methods of the article are terrible. 4)Bulnes doesn't provide sources for his works. Moreover, his works are a mixture of facts and bias (which even you admit). The major complaint I have with using Bulnes is that his bias is not used as a form of reliable sourcing, which is what you just did in the discussion where you present quotes from different books.--//MarshalN20\\ (talk) 14:51, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages is an encyclopedia. Encyclopedias should only include the truth on subjects, not falsities or "Half-truths." We're not creating truth in Misplaced Pages, we're simply recording it. The problem with "war" articles is that they will always have opposing view points, and usually they can't reach consensus. Hopefully this will not be the case with this article.--//MarshalN20\\ (talk) 14:51, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

This is what has been agreed thus far:

1. the pact was officially defensive  Done
2. the pact was interpreted as defensive but also as offenssive
3. the pact was one of the reasons of war adduced by Chile  Done
4. the pact encouraged Daza to provoke Chile  Done
5. the abrogation of the pact was one of the Chilean conditions during the Lackawamma conference
6. the pact was secret  Done
7. the secret clause is considered in all views as negative (I mean Besadre and Mariano Paz Soldan, the Chileans anyway)
8. it is controversial when Chile knew from the pact
9. Argentina was the other country scheduled to enter the pact and wanted to to so initially but she didn't--//MarshalN20\\ (talk) 14:51, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

The second point is still in discussion as to how it will turn out. Chile saw the pact as offensive, even after Peru stated it was not offensive to Chile. However, what Chile thought and what the alliance actually was is a complete different reality. Secret clauses are, by nature, always seen as negative. There is no need for such a mention in the article (It goes beside the point); same thing with "controversial" (Secret treaties are, by nature, controversial).--//MarshalN20\\ (talk) 14:51, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

2 Questions still remain

1. Can anybody explain how an alliance can be both offensive and defensive? I don't quite understand how that makes sense. If no explanation can be given, I'll be forced to continue the argument that the alliance was purely defensive.--//MarshalN20\\ (talk) 02:41, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

From what I know, an Offensive alliance is (in all essence) a regular alliance (defensive/aggresive; active at all times). The main difference between both kinds of alliances is that in a defensive alliance, the alliance can only take effect if one of the allies is being attacked (not the attacker). On the other hand, an offensive alliance is (in all essence) a regular alliance where the allies are part of war at all times. This is how I understand the matter, and this is why it seems illogical for me that an alliance can be both "Offensive and Defensive."--//MarshalN20\\ (talk) 02:41, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

2. How can it be certified (With reliable sources) that the "Offensive and Defensive" alliance was aimed at Chile? Like it was mentioned earlier, both Peru and Bolivia had to watch out against a series of enemies (Possible invasion from Europeans, Brazil, Ecuador, Colombia, and even Argentina).--//MarshalN20\\ (talk) 02:41, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Think of a knife. Is it defensive or offenessive?

Think XX wants to rob ZZ. XX hites him from behind with a stone and tries to kill him but the man ZZ strips (pull) a kneife and kills XX first. The knife was a defensive weapon.

Now think XX wants to rob ZZ. This time XX have a knife and XX stab him from behind. ZZ die. The knife was a offenssive weapon.

That is for a knive but not for a traty?. Now try to follow me:

The countries X and Y have common interests, both have problems with country Z. But Y is too weak to impose her interests against Z. She (Y alone) will never win a war against Z. X and Y make a treaty they call defensive to defend self again Z. But now, through the treaty, can Y impose her interests again Z, because X and Y together are stronger than Z and Y takes the chance and break the boundary treaties with Z. The defensive Pact become a offensive Pact. And that without or with the intention of Y. X behavior makes the treaty offenssive.

About Brasil. International relations are guided also by common sense. Put your right hand on your heart and answer me: whom aimed the treaty?. To negate that is like to say that Chile was not interested in the money of the salitre.

Gonzalo Bulnes reproduces a document from Peru for Argentina that accept to put the name of Chile in the Pact avoiding to slander Brasil. That was an Argentine requirement to enter the pact. But you don't believe Bulnes. So I don't tell where it is.

--Keysanger (talk) 12:21, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

The best example you make is that of the knife. "Think XX wants to rob ZZ. XX hites him from behind with a stone and tries to kill him but the man ZZ strips (pull) a kneife and kills XX first. The knife was a defensive weapon." This is what happened during the War of the Pacific. Which nation officially declared war first? The "official" War of the Pacific begins when Chile declares war upon both Peru and Bolivia, and at that point Peru makes the casus foederis of the alliance. XX stands to me as Chile, while ZZ stands as Bolivia. The "knife" is the defensive alliance it had with Peru. However, the result of this case is that "XX" still wins.--//MarshalN20\\ (talk) 14:07, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Once again, that opens up my point as to how can a defensive alliance be an offensive alliance? It doesn't make sense (It can only be one or the other, but not both).--//MarshalN20\\ (talk) 14:07, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

"But you don't believe Bulnes. So I don't tell where it is." You do know that this particular statement sounds very childish?--//MarshalN20\\ (talk) 14:10, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

You can replace X with Bolivia, Y with Peru and Z with Chile. But you can also replace X=Georgia, Y=NATO and Z=Russia. It is a similar case, but the NATO is not ready to send his boys to die for Georgia's interests. The NATO will Georgia as member, but not the 2008 South Ossetia war with Russia. So the NATO helps Georgia, supports them but doesn't accept it as member as long as Georgia doesn't fix the boundary with Russia. If the NATO has accepted Georgia as member then Georgia would have used the NATO against Russia. Georgia would have converted the Pact into a aggresive Pact.

That is the reason why Georgia is not member of the nato. The Nato doesn't want to be envolved in a war FOR Georgia.

--Keysanger (talk) 13:03, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

How can Georgia "convert" a pact into aggressive? If the imaginary defensive pact it would make with NATO is only useful for defensive purposes (ex. if Russia invades Georgia again), how can Georgia turn it into aggressive (Ex. Georgia invades Russia)? Take this Wikiquote from the casus foederis article: "Thus, in World War I, the treaties between Italy and Austria-Hungary, and Romania, which purported to require Italy and Romania to come to Austria’s aid if Austria was attacked by another nation, were not honored by either Italy or Romania because, as Winston Churchill wrote, “the casus fœderis had not arisen” because the attacks on Austria had not been “unprovoked.”"--//MarshalN20\\ (talk) 14:07, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

I think the idea that the Peru-Bolivia alliance was "offensive" would have been an obvious fact if Peru had joined military forces with Bolivia when Hilarion Daza requested Peru's assistance in the matter. However, this is not what happened. Peru, instead of doing what Daza insisted, decided to go for a more defensive approach of the matter. It sent its best diplomat in order to negotiate a peaceful conclusion to the problem. Moreover, it even presented the complete "secret defensive alliance treaty" to Chile, and proposed consideration for both the Chilean and Bolivian issue at the Peruvian congress. Peru only entered the war after Chile declared war upon it and Bolivia. Answer me this, are these the steps an "offensive alliance" would have taken?--//MarshalN20\\ (talk) 14:07, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Once signed the treaty, the weaker Country can provoke the stronger country. The robber doesn't need to use the knife, he only needs to show it and say: "give me the money or I stab you here". (I would give him my money).

Bolivia believed Chile would duck down with the threat of Peru. You will say: But Chile didn't know nothing about the pact!. No problem, if she resists to abandon her rights during the negotiations and mediation we told her about the pact and that will be enough. Read the letter from Daza to the Prefect of Antofagasta. The negotiation mask were only a swindle (a fake). In spanish I would say: "Bolivia empujo al Peru a la guerra". Of a defensive pact Bolivia made a offensive pact.

Other case: Falklands war and the TIAR. Argentina, the weaker country, invades the islands and later, as the british, the strong country, were comming, requested help from TIAR. If the TIAR has said yes we help you, then the TIAR, a defensive organization, would be involved in a Invasion, Argentina has have converted the defensive pact in an aggressive one. And that same is valid about the "mediation" of the USA between Argentina and UK. It was a swindle. The USA were always on the UK side and the USA was ready to demostrate it. (But the UK didn't provoke the war)

Consider that now we know that: Chile was not weaker than Peru and Bolivia together, probably Chile knew about the pact, Chile didn't duck down and Peru made a mistake as declared the casus federalis. But Daza didn't know that, and Peru didn't see the consecuences.

The same for the second example: Argentina believed that England would duck down, believed that the USA would be neutral etc, etc. And Argentina didn't duck down during the negotiations but the USA and UK together are stronger than Argentina. There are some similitude between Daza and Galtieri.

--Keysanger (talk) 15:02, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

I understand what you're saying. The knife explanation does not seem to be helping the matter as it is making it more complicated (so let's put an end to that). What you mention, which if I recall correctly comes from Gonzalo Bulnes's work, Bolivia attempted to use the defensive alliance it had with Peru as an offensive alliance by attempting to threaten Chile with it. Next, you explain that the negotiations were only fake. Finally, you tell that Bolivia pushed Peru into the war (which, if I may add, later dumped Peru and left it to its own luck). Yet, as I read the passage/letter again, by taking out Bulnes's POV from the matter it, it is Hilarion Daza who is making the statements in a personal letter to the prefect of Antofagasta. Daza is the only one discussing the possible usage of the defensive treaty with Peru as a "threat" for Chile.--//MarshalN20\\ (talk) 13:50, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

In reality, with the events that actually took place (not the "possible" events), the government of Bolivia did not use the defensive treaty as offensive. The government first requested Peruvian assistance when Chile invaded Antofagasta (which the Bolivian government, encouraged by Daza, saw as a reason for the defensive treaty to come into effect). Peru, who obviously knew its military was not ready for a war (you mention Peru didn't know about Chile's strength, but Peru did know about its own military weakness), did not call casus foederis of the alliance as no war had been declared from either side. Not only that, but after Chile sent Peru a request for neutrality in the conflict (as, according to Bulnes, Chile already knew about the secret defensive alliance), Peru was honest and told the Chilean ambassador that it had a secret defensive alliance with Bolivia. If that were not enough, Peru proposed Chile that it would present the matter in the Peruvian congress (who had people such as Miguel Grau, a retired and respected naval officer who had fought alongside Chile in the Chincha Islands War and was well aware of Peru's military weakness). The defensive alliance only came into effect after Chile declared war upon Peru and Bolivia.--//MarshalN20\\ (talk) 13:50, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

In your statement you compare Peru with the US, in terms of them making "swindle negotiations." However, during the negotiations between Peru and Chile, Peru's request on the matter was that Chile returned Antofagasta to Bolivia. According to Gonzalo Bulnes, Bolivia wanted to extend its borders past Antofagasta; so the Peruvian proposal with Chile would not have been viewed as favorable by Hilarion Daza. Peru was proposing for the return to the status quo, but neither Chile or Bolivia were interested in that. How exactly does that make Peru a "swindler" in negotiations?--//MarshalN20\\ (talk) 13:50, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Finally, you tell how Bolivia expected for Chile to "duck down." However, is this what Peru thought too? The evidence you present, which is mainly Gonzalo Bulnes, only refers to Bolivia acting as the "abuser" who wants to make a defensive treaty into an offensive treaty. However, Peru is barely even mentioned as having done much of anything beyond that of dealing honestly with Chile and attempting to mediate a conflict peacefully.--//MarshalN20\\ (talk) 13:50, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

On a last note, the USA never provided assistance to the British during the Falklands War. The only American country that provided assistance to Britain was Chile; Margaret Thatcher even claimed that without Chile, Britain would not have had a chance at defeating Argentina.--//MarshalN20\\ (talk) 13:50, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Arriving at Conclusion

Keysanger has provided a good response (after finally providing reliable sources for the claim that the Peru-Bolivia alliance was offensive, but also defensive) to the argument. So this is what seems to be a good consensus (Please comment if you don't agree):

1. First, the Peru-Bolivia alliance was officially (on paper) defensive.
2. Second, the Peru-Bolivia alliance was secret.
3. Third, Chile viewed the alliance as offensive to it; but it should be noted that it was an incorrect view (as both Peru and the articles in the defensive treaty told Chile that it was not offensive to anyone) that was fueled by the letter of Hilarion Daza and the political views of the late Diego Portales.
4. Fourth, Hilarion Daza (not Bolivia, and not Peru) attempted to use the defensive alliance as an offensive alliance against Chile.
5. Fifth, despite the actions Hilarion Daza took to turn the defensive alliance into an offensive alliance, the defensive alliance between Peru and Bolivia only came into official effect after Chile declared war on both Peru and Bolivia. Thus, the alliance was, in reality, only used defensively.

What do the rest of you think? I think we're getting close to a consensus that will help resolve the problem without the need of arbitration, so if you think anything of the above must be further discussed (or things need to be added), please mention it below.--//MarshalN20\\ (talk) 13:50, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't agree with your views. There are a lot of problems with Misplaced Pages pillars.

• "officially" is not enough, "officially titled" is right.
• Your but it should be noted that it was an incorrect view is not our duty to give marks, (correct or incorrect), that should be decided by the reader. See Misplaced Pages:Neutral point of view. Do we want to judge the facts of the history?. What about Peru's decision to enter the war? correct or incorrect?, What about Grau's decision to sail to Angamos? correct or incorrect?, What about Rebolledo's decision not to attack Callao at the beginning of the war? good? wrong?. Should we give marks? ...
• ..., Thus, the alliance was, in reality, only used defensively: To arrive at conclusions, good or wrong, is not the duty of wikipedians. In Misplaced Pages that is called Misplaced Pages:Original research. We write the facts: titled defensive, interpreted defensive by X and interpreted offensive by Z. No biased comments.

1. the Peru-Bolivia alliance was officially titled defensive.
2. the Peru-Bolivia alliance was secret.
3. Chile viewed the alliance as offensive to it and war one of the reasons to enter in war. (Do not add adjetives to the Chilean view.)
4. Bolivia broke the 1874 Boundary Treaty and requested from Peru the Alliance Treaty against Chile
5. the actions Hilarion Daza took to turn the defensive alliance into an offensive alliance were successful, Peru didn't stay neutral, albeit she could do it.
6. The pact was for Chile one of the reasons to enter the war
7. the abrogation of the pact was one of the Chilean conditions during the Lackawamma conference

We should follow A. Einstein advice: Everything should be made as simple as possible, but no simpler. Don't add your "notes", "biased Authors", "conclusions", "that was fueled", etc. One could think that you to take the reader for a fool.

--Keysanger (talk) 20:53, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

One can think whatever he may want to think. Nobody is trying to manipulate what anybody is thinking. Logic, that is properly sourced logic, is by no means against the Wikicode.--//MarshalN20\\ (talk) 02:31, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

For instance, what do you mean by: ""officially" is not enough, "officially titled" is right". A document as plain as the Peru-Bolivia Defensive Treaty of 1873 speaks for itself. A document is not simply "titled" something, it contains information that defines it as something. All reliable sources agree that the document defining the alliance between Peru and Bolivia, was a defensive alliance treaty. Example: The original "Operation Valkyrie" was officially titled "Operation Valkyrie." So? What does that tell you? Nothing. However, the correct thing to say would be "the original Operation Valkyrie was officially designed to deal with internal disturbances in emergency situations." Presenting the information how it is has no connection to WP:OR.--//MarshalN20\\ (talk) 02:31, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

I still don't understand why you're opposed at the treaty being described as defensive. I've tried to think about it, taking into consideration that I may be wrong, but from all angles it is simply correct. The treaty was titled defensive, was put into effect during the war in a defensive manner, and reliable sources present the treaty as defensive. What's not defensive about the treaty?--//MarshalN20\\ (talk) 02:31, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Also, the wording "Chile viewed the alliance as a menace" is more correct. Now how about this for a consensus (I'll check the ones that you repeated, or that I repeat, which I take to be agreed).

1. the Peru-Bolivia alliance was officially defensive. {Currently Discussing}
2. The Peru-Bolivia alliance was secret.Y
3. Chile viewed the alliance as a menace to it and was one of the reasons to enter in war.Y
4. Bolivia broke the 1874 Boundary Treaty and requested from Peru the Alliance Treaty against Chile. {Disputed}
5. The actions Hilarion Daza took to turn the defensive alliance into an offensive alliance were successful, Peru didn't stay neutral, albeit she could do it. {completely unreferenced claim; Peru didn't enter the war as the offender, but rather entered it as the defender under the casus foederis of the defensive treaty. Additionally, Chile didn't allow Peru the official consideration of the neutrality proposal. All of the things mentioned in this exerpt have been sourced in the article}.
6. The abrogation of the pact was one of the Chilean conditions during the Lackawamma conference. {Please explain what abrogation means to you}
7. Hilarion Daza (not Bolivia, and not Peru) attempted to use the defensive alliance as an offensive alliance against Chile.
8. Despite the actions Hilarion Daza took to turn the defensive alliance into an offensive alliance, the defensive alliance between Peru and Bolivia only came into official effect after Chile declared war on both Peru and Bolivia. Thus, the alliance was only used defensively.

Two things thus far have been agreed. I'm sure the rest will soon be solved.--//MarshalN20\\ (talk) 02:31, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

I added the cite of G.Bulnes. Regarding the name I agree officially titled. It is used in Misplaced Pages in Hitler-Stalin Pact and Venezuela in order to disassociate with the aim of the namegiving. (Almost nobody beleves that the name "non-aggression pact" is right and many Venezolanos don't like the change to "Republica bolivariana")

Abrogations means for me that http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/abrogation

--Keysanger (talk) 13:31, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

If that is the way you define abrogation, then I also agree with it. Also, why do you compare the Peru-Bolivia Defensive Alliance to be like the Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact? The Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact was broken by Hitler when he attacked the Soviet Union. The Peru-Bolivia Defensive Alliance was never broken and came into effect after Chile declared war on Bolivia and Peru. Hilarion Daza might have attempted to make the alliance aggressive, but the casus foederis only arose after Chile officially declared war. You're still not explaining why it is not a defensive alliance. Please explain why (and please no more analogies like that of the "knife").--//MarshalN20\\ (talk) 14:39, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm updating the list of consensus. I took out the unreferenced section that claimed that Hilarion Daza turned the alliance into an offensive alliance. Consensus was reached for te Lackawmma Conference.

1. the Peru-Bolivia alliance was officially defensive. {Currently Discussing}
2. The Peru-Bolivia alliance was secret.Y
3. Chile viewed the alliance as a menace to it and was one of the reasons to enter in war.Y
4. Bolivia broke the 1874 Boundary Treaty. {Disputed by Arafael}
5. The abrogation of the pact was one of the Chilean conditions during the Lackawamma Conference.Y
6. Hilarion Daza (not Bolivia, and not Peru) attempted to use the defensive alliance as a threat to Chile. {Referenced by Gonzalo Bulnes}
7. Despite the actions Hilarion Daza took to turn the defensive alliance into an offensive alliance, the defensive alliance between Peru and Bolivia only came into official effect after Chile declared war on both Peru and Bolivia. Thus, the alliance was only used defensively.

Three things thus far have been agreed.--//MarshalN20\\ (talk) 14:39, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Ineligible for Third Opinion

Hi, I reviewed this discussion and it is not eligible for a third opinion, since more than two editors are involved in the dispute. For disputes that are more complicated than requiring a single editor to provide opinions to two others, I recommend WP:MEDCAB. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 06:17, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Defensive Alliance: Peru and Bolivia

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."--//MarshalN20\\ (talk) 21:24, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

The following are provided by User:Arafael:

• Read in Republic of Chile. Foreign Ministry. Archive 1884: "Copia Tratado de Alianza Defensiva Perú-Bolivia (1873)"
• Read in Chilean newspaper : "Perú (quien intervino producto de un tratado defensivo..."--//MarshalN20\\ (talk) 21:24, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Super!!!, now find some for the other side to be neutral. --Keysanger (talk) 21:43, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

lol. That is your job Keysanger. You're the one chasing the idea that the alliance was offensive against Chile. All of the reliable sources I have provided, and the ones provided by Arafael from Chilean sources, all agree that the alliance was defensive.--//MarshalN20\\ (talk) 21:57, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Don't You want to have a WP:NPOV? --Keysanger (talk) 19:13, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

At this point I think it’s necessary that an administrator intervenes. Keysanger is clearly missing the point about references, which in turn, is stalling this whole discussion with redundant arguments.

Keysanger, it is crucial that you understand this;

If you believe, know or theorize that the treaty was X, Y, or Z, then, you need to provide the corresponding sources that corroborates it.

Marshall and Arafael are of the idea that the treaty was defensive, and they have provided reliable sources to back that up. Why can’t you do the same?

Likeminas (talk) 19:30, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

As Likeminas points out, you're at a loss here Keysanger. Reliable sources have been provided that prove that the Peru-Bolivia alliance was defensive. You have failed to provide reliable sources (Note the plural, which means more than one) that prove your stance. However, as Likeminas points out, time has come for more serious action to be taken. I have began dispute resolution nominations and an RfC for the discussion. Nonetheless, there is still time for you to change your PoV and prevent from this to further scale; it's up to you to decide Keysanger.--//MarshalN20\\ (talk) 21:12, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Can we agree on that the treaty was (at least partly) pointed toward Chile? The only common threats to Peru and Bolivia at that time were

1) Brazilian expansion in the Amazon, which occured later with the the specific example of the annexation of Acre

2) Seafaring nations such as Britain, USA and Spain that had interest in the coastal regions. A specific example od this was the Chincha Islands War. However if this would had been the main goal of the treaty Chile would have been invited.

3) Chilean influence.

The Chilean claims of that this alliance was pointed toward them are totally understandable, since Chile had since the times of Diego Portales and the War of the Confederation seen with alarm any approachment between Peru and Bolivia. Since Diego Portales views were maintream in the political class of Chile it was obvious that they saw this alliance as an eminent treat to Chile (if not a real an imaginary one).Dentren | 17:38, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Can we agree on that anything that is to be included into the article must be coming from a reliable source?

Likeminas (talk) 18:07, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree completely with Likeminas. He's the one making the most logic out of this whole nonsense-filled discussion.--//MarshalN20\\ (talk) 20:08, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

In response to Dentren: A defensive alliance, by its nature, is pointed towards the defense of the countries involved in the alliance. In other words, the treaty was not pointed against any specific country. Nowhere in the document of the treaty is there a mention to a specific nation. The reliable sources provided from neutral third-parties all agree that the treaty and the alliance were of defensive natures. Dentren, your list of historical situations at that time is factual, but incomplete. First let me comment on the three examples:

1. True. The Brazilian expansion in the Amazon was a threat to Peru and Bolivia. However, Brazil was also facing border problems with Colombia, as this wikipicture shows: . In your second claim you point out that the non-inclusion of Chile in the treaty means that Peru and Bolivia were not planning on making a defense against European invaders, which would mean that they were plotting against Chile. Yet, Colombia was not part of the alliance either. By following the logic you present, then that means Bolivia and Peru were also not defending against Brazil. If you further add the conclusion I made from that logic, then Bolivia and Peru were plotting against Colombia. The conclusions I have made are incorrrect, however. As such, if you concur with my explanation, the conclusion you make that the defensive alliance was not meant for European coastal invaders is also incorrect.

2. I've explained why your idea that this was not a "main goal" is incorrect in the first part. Technically speaking, neither the "European invasion of the coasts" or the "Brazilian expansion of the Amazon" were main goals of the treaty, but they were goals as the defensive alliance calls it for them to be preocupations that required protection.

3. Chilean influence was a problem, but that was mainly and almost exclusively for Bolivia. Peru was doing financially good, but did not spend enough of that wealth into military measures (an error which the War of the Pacific would prove to be a terrible mistake). Peru held enough power in the Pacific coast as did Chile, in terms of commerce. The main fear of Peru was that of Chile wanting to expand further north (which eventually happened during the War of the Pacific), and to a lesser extent an economic rivalry between Callao and Valparaiso (which was not "big" enough in order to serve as the cause for a war). Bolivia was the one that dragged Peru into the war (And then left them alone early in the war); Peru was honor-bound by the defensive alliance to do so. Moreover, Peru was even going to re-consider the defensive alliance in the Peruvian congress (as the article explains) as a measure to avoid war with Chile, but Chile declared war on Bolivia and Peru before the Peruvian congress could even begin talks on the problem. Would a country that was part of an offensive alliance against a particular nation want to mediate a conflict peacefully (Especially if the alliance was made against that particular nation)? The actions taken by Peru during the start of the war demonstrate that the pure essence of the alliance was defensive; with the exception of the Argentine proposal, which Peruvians claim that Argentina suggested (not the other way around, as Argentineans claim).

--//MarshalN20\\ (talk) 20:08, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Now that I've commented on your 3 points, here are some other issues going on at that time that concerned the defensive alliance:

4. Peru was having ongoing conflicts with Ecuador over their borders. They even had a war about 20 years before the War of the Pacific: Ecuadorian–Peruvian war of 1858 (to 1860). The war, which was won by Peru, did not resolve much of anything. Peru was still at odds with Ecuador, and the defensive alliance Peru made in 1873 also reflects the Peruvian need for protection against a possible second war with Ecuador (which eventually did happen, and a third war followed). However, just as Chile was mainly a Bolivia worry, Ecuador was mainly a Peruvian worry. Does this mean that the defensive alliance was meant against Ecuador?

5. Peru was also having border conflicts with Colombia. Though not as heavy as with Ecuador, the problem was still present. Was the defensive alliance meant against Colombia?

6. The Peru-Bolivia defensive alliance was, partly, a consequence to the prior Peru-Bolivian Confederation that was dissolved by Chile during the War of the Confederation. The Peru-Bolivian Confederation was not aimed against Chile (IMO, the Confederation was against Ecuador and Colombia), but people like Diego Portales (the merchant and political figure of Chile that you mention) made it seem like an alliance between Peru and Bolivia would always be a threat for Chile. This xenophobia of Portales has indeed been sponged by Chilean politics, and especially given shine during the rule of Pinochet. As much of a popular view that Portales's view might have had during the War of the Pacific (and even still today), the idea that Peru and Bolivia's defensive alliance in 1873 was aimed as an offensive alliance against Chile still makes no sense as a fact.

--//MarshalN20\\ (talk) 20:08, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

However, the basic idea that Likeminas, and up to a certain point me, have been arguing is that there are no reliable third-party sources (plural) that analyze the alliance was offensive against any nation in particular. All reliable third-party sources, including one highly neutral source from the New York Times (Which interviews a Chilean and a Peruvian politician), presents the alliance as purely defensive. If that were not enough, User:Arafael brought in Chilean sources claiming the alliance to have been defensive. Based on these things, I have to repeat (for a fourth time, I believe) that the Chilean idea that the Peru-Bolivia defensive alliance was offensive against Chile is erroneous; it was a mistake (which might have been involuntary, but might have also been done on purpose) from the Chilean government at that time, which apparently to this day many Chileans are incorrectly taught at school or at home. Just as Misplaced Pages is not a place for simple "facts" to be placed without reliable sources, it is quite especially not a place were "errors" must thrive.--//MarshalN20\\ (talk) 20:08, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

List of changes made without community consent

I have noticed that Keysanger has changed a consensus we arrived a while back in the discussion (maybe a month or so). This change is in regards to the Bolivian decree made by the president of Bolivia, which was agreed after an effective discussion (where reliable sources were presented, ideas were argued with passionate but logical debates based on sources and not opinions) that it was not an official declaration of war. In other words, Bolivia did not declare war with the declaration. Also, during that discussion it was equally agreed that the Chilean invasion of Antofagasta was not a declaration of war from Chile. However, Keysanger has changed the text providing a series of sources that claim the treaty as a declaration of war. I believe that this should be reverted back to what had been agreed by consensus; but if a new discussion wants to be opened that should also have a chance at this point.--//MarshalN20\\ (talk) 20:08, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

The Bolivian declaration of war, is a little trickier since there are reliable sources that corroborate it. Nonetheless, we have extensively discussed that issue here, and at this point I considered it settled.

I would revert Keysanger edits and suggest him to go and look into that debate, and afterwards, (if he thinks it is necessary) to come back to this discussion and explain why the previous consensus should be changed.

As for all the interpretations you guys are giving, I can only say: Save it.

It's just a waste of time if no sources are presented.

Likeminas (talk) 20:33, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree Likeminas. The problem is that I can foretell that once I revert the information on that particular section to what consensus agreed it to be, Keysanger will more than likely revert it back to the information he provided (leading to an edit conflict). In order to be more specific, this is the final discussion made on that particular statement: Talk:War_of_the_Pacific/Archive_1#Findings_so_far. It reached the consensus of Dentren, Likeminas, Arafael, and myself (All of the participants of the discussion). Afterwards I left this whole War of the Pacific as there was apparently no more need for my opinion (Things were being done by consensus, and reaching solutions without edit wars, and using reliable sources). I'm surprised to find myself back here two months after that, but I can't complain (I accepted to return). Without further chit-chat from my part, here is the statement that was developed:

" After the Chilean invasion of Antofagasta, Hilarión Daza made a presidential decree which demanded the expulsion of Chileans and the nationalizing of Chilean private property. Due to its aggressiveness, the Chilean government understood the decree as a declaration of war. However, although both nations had already taken aggressive actions, in reality no war had yet been formally declared from either side of the conflict."

These are the sources provided by Arafael that were used to source the sentence; as can be seen, the sources are varied, but the idea remains central:

Guillermo Lagos Carmona, chilean historian, lawyer and ambassador, in his book: "History of the borders of Chile" page 65, Section 4: "The declaration of war of bolivia" considers the Bolivian decree from president Daza (March 1st) , against Chilean interests in Bolivia, as a declaration of war.

Arafael (talk) 19:45, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Ramiro Prudencio Lizón, bolivian historian and diplomat, in "La Razon", bolivian newspaper, digital edition, Feb 20th 2008: The occupation of Antofagasta: "So that Chile could move further north, there was a need for a formal declaration of war. And it wasn't that country but rather Bolivia that sent an internal decree that afterwards would be interpreted as a real declaration of war. This was published on March 1st 1879.. Also in "Correo del Sur", bolivian newspaper, Feb 14th 2004.

Arafael (talk) 13:39, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Atilio Sivirichi Tapia, peruvian historian and professor, in his book, "History of Peru", page 193, : "Bolivia limited itself to declaring the 1st of March, with relations with Chile cut, a statement declaring the expulsion of Chileans. This deed, was interpreted by the Chilean government, as declaration of war as a cause for the occupation of the whole coast".

Arafael (talk) 14:10, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Tommaso Caivano, italian historian, in his book : "History of the American war between Chile, Peru and Bolivia", Page 66 (Il 17 marzo, il Gabinetto...)  : "This decree, as it clearly reads, just gives some actions on the state of war ... and, as textually detail, "during the war that Chile has promoted to Bolivia", it was interpreted by Chile, in an original way. The Government of Chile said that the decree contained a declaration of war."

Arafael (talk) 20:06, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

As such, I will edit the statement back into the article as consensus had agreed. If a change is wished for this particular sentence, please discuss it here.--//MarshalN20\\ (talk) 21:20, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

I wish that the date of the decree and the controversial passage are mentioned in the text. Further, the references have to be separeted:

• the sources that support the Declaration of war
• the sources that support the no- Declaration of war

--Keysanger (talk) 11:26, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm sure we can come to a compromise without the need of a problem. The date of the decree has been added. Adding the passage in the article would increase its size (Check WP:SIZE) and hinder readability. Could you elaborate a little more on the matter of "the references have to be separated" (I don't quite understand your idea).--//MarshalN20\\ (talk) 02:25, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages can save 96 characters more without going bankrupt. If we find different interpretations of the decree, then we have to write a sentence that reproduces the Peruvian POV (with the references thereto) and a sentence with the Chilean POV (with the references thereto).

--Keysanger (talk) 12:57, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

your revert says:

After the Chilean invasion of Antofagasta, Hilarión Daza made a presidential decree on March 1, 1879, which demanded the expulsion of Chileans and the nationalizing of Chilean private property. Due to its aggressiveness, the Chilean government understood the decree as a declaration of war. However, although both nations had already taken aggressive actions, in reality no war had yet been formally declared from either side of the conflict.

my revert was:

After the Chilean invasion of Antofagasta, on 1. March 1870 Hilarión Daza made a controversial presidential decree that "suspended the trade and comunication to the Republic of Chile during the war imposed to Bolivia"

The Chilean government understood the decree as a declaration of war but some voices in Peru and Bolivia claim that the Chileans intencionally tergiversate the significance of the decree

The decree demanded the expulsion of Chileans and the nationalizing of Chilean private property.

Your revert delivered 4 references indiscriminately. My revert assign the right reference to the right sentence. That is what I mean.

Other problem I have with your revert is that subtly support the Peruvian and Bolivian view that the war was not declared by this Bolivian decree. It says After the Chilean invasion of Antofagasta, Hilarión Daza made a presidential decree on March 1, 1879, which demanded the expulsion of Chileans and the nationalizing of Chilean private property. That is, think the reader, the decree doesn't says nothing about war. But that is not true, the decree says about war: Artículo 1: Queda cortado todo comercio y comunicación con la República de Chile mientras dure la guera que ha promovido a Bolivia. In english: as long as lasts the war (?). Was Bolivia on war?. Due to its aggressiveness is not the right reproduction of the passage. We should let the reader decides about that.

I expect your statement

--Keysanger (talk) 13:43, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

I still don't understand why you think it's correct to "separate" a sentence with "Chilean POV" and "Peruvian POV." You don't seem to understand the concept of WP:NPOV. The original sentence that was agreed by consensus includes both the harshest part of the decree (Expulsion of Chileans and taking of property) and the idea that Chile understood the decree as a declaration of war. Along with that, the original consensus sentence includes that "in reality no war had yet been formally declared from either side of the conflict," which is a true statement (with reliable references supporting it) as according to the Bolivian constitution, the only way for Bolivia to be in war would be if the Bolivian congress passed forth a law accepting the war (A presidential decree has no official effect as a declaration of war; added that Daza's statement is not even a "declaration of war." He's merely stating that Chile has ignited war by invading Antofagasta, which goes back to the point that neither country had officially declared war even though both had taken agressive actions). This is not a "support" for the Peruvian and Bolivian view; it's NPOV from actual Bolivian law.--//MarshalN20\\ (talk) 18:02, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Moreover, your sentence (in comparisson to the original consensus sentence) is grammatically inferior and makes a jumble out of something that is correctly presented (and with essentially the same things) in the original consensus sentence. An example of your sentence's error would be, "but some voices in Peru and Bolivia," which is a clear example of WP:WEASEL.--//MarshalN20\\ (talk) 18:02, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

The best point you make in your position is that of correctly placing the sources where they belong. I'll do that as it is a logical and good idea.--//MarshalN20\\ (talk) 18:02, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

I added the decree passage again. --Keysanger (talk) 20:32, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Tendentious Editing

Misplaced Pages:Tendentious editing

After some time of searching Misplaced Pages policies, essays, and otherwhatnot, I finally found the best suited example of the problem currently shaping this article. The edits of users such as User:Keysanger are and should be considered tendentious editing. I believe that User:Likeminas has more experience at dealing with these problems, as he has faced a series of arguments with a certain user who does not deserve mention in this discussion. Although Misplaced Pages is not a bureaucracy (not even sure if I spelled it right, which further explains why Misplaced Pages should not be that. lol), this kind of essays help to explain the common problems that take place prior or during what is called an "edit war." I accuse User:Keysanger of doing tendentious editing under the following standards mentioned in the essay:

• You find that nobody will assume good faith, no matter how often you remind them.
• You challenge the reversion of your edits, demanding that others justify it.
• You find yourself repeating the same argument over and over again, without persuading people. (Note: I realize that I have fallen victim to this particular one)
• You delete the cited additions of others with the complaint that they did not discuss their edits first.
• You have been involved on a particular page for a long time, yet all you have ever done there is delete, revert, tag, and criticize.
• You constantly warn editors for "harassment" or "incivility" which occurs within mostly constructive comments.
• You characterize every warning directed at you as "harassment".

Keysanger is not the only one who has done this, as several of us involved in the discussion have also done one or two of the mistakes mentioned in the essay (including myself). However, as of now Keysanger's edits in the article have seriously been the most blatant of tendentious editing out of everyone involved. I would like to use this section in order to discuss the tendentious editing currently going on at the War of the Pacific article. POV pushing is not constructive, heck it's not even funny (and I'm the kind of person that laughs at mostly anything). I've noticed that Keysanger uses sources in order to certify several of his additions, and yet some of those additions clearly present a heavily biased POV (supported by equally biased sources). I follow WP:GF, and assume that Keysanger probably means his edits in good faith of what he believes to be correct. Yet, all of us must understand that many of the things we could have been taught in our childhood (or even during our older days) were incorrect; especially if you learned them from a non-neutral party. If the blatant tendentious editing continues, there will be no other option than to bring in a Misplaced Pages administrator that will have to use his power in order to find a solution to the problem. I would like to encourage all of you who are involved in this project to discuss things fairly, prevent the pushing of biased POV, and provide reliable sources when attempting to discuss a major change.--//MarshalN20\\ (talk) 20:58, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

LOL --Keysanger (talk) 22:57, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Gonzalo Bulnes: Reliable or Not Reliable?

The following source from Gonzalo Bulnes, of his book "Guerra del Pacifico," holds no section where it cites the works he has gathered his information from: . The information Bulnes provides is, up to a certain point, important. However, the article is being heavily cited by the works of Gonzalo Bulnes. Bulnes, a Chilean historian and politician, provides a heavily biased Chilean POV in his works. I've read parts of his book "Guerra del Pacifico," and found text such as this: "Alentado probablemente por el Ministro peruano, Daza inaugura una politica de atropellos, conforme a 10s procedimientos que usaba en el gobierno interior" "Probably urged by the Peruvian minister, Daza inaugurates an aggressive policy, conformed to the 10 proceedings that he used in the interior government" In other words, his works hold no references and have his own POV on the matter ("Probably" is POV. "Aggressive Policy" without references is POV). Therefore, I don't think that this is something that the article should use as a single reliable source for exceptional claims. Bulnes does provide points that the article needs, but I believe we should reach a compromise when mentioning this author:

1)Whenever citing Bulnes, the information cannot be taken as a complete fact (It can and should be challenged when appropiate).

2)The phrase "According to Chilean historian Gonzalo Bulnes" is a requirement in order to specifically mention the person who is providing the information.

What do the rest of you think?--//MarshalN20\\ (talk) 23:36, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

I think Gonzalo Bulnes is a reliable source.

What do you think about http://www.larazon.com.pe/online/indice.asp ? --Keysanger (talk) 11:18, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

I've tried to search for more information regarding the newspaper "La Razon." After looking around for more verification on its reliable status, I really could not find much of anything aside from a series of names of people. It doesn't seem to me to be a completely reliable source, so if you (or anybody else) wants to use it in the article it should be with extreme care of only taking the information for what it is and not for what it might be made look.--//MarshalN20\\ (talk) 01:22, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

I concur with Keysanger this time. Gonzalo Bulnes is a well known Chilean historian. And as most historians, he writes from a documented point of view. I would even argue that most sources (including encyclopedias such as Britannica) have a POV, and ultimately there’s nothing wrong with that, as it is us as contributors that must comply with NPOV, not the source.

Regarding the other two points you raise.

1)I would agree with you if it was changed to; whenever citing X the information can and should be challenge if another reliable source contradicts it.

2)I don’t agree with the proposal of adding according to Chilean historian Gonzalo Bulnes because then we would have to add that kind of "intro" to every single source for the sake of uniformity and neutrality. Imagine an article cluttered with according to Peruvian writer X, according to Peruvian newspaper, according to American/British journalist and so on.

In the end it would just be a mess.

I understand, however, that relying too heavily on Bulnes (or any other single sources for that matter), might not give an overall balance to the article. And that’s why we should try to diversify our sources.

But in order to give some kind of solution, and although I don’t see it as necessary, we could add a notation within the reference stating the nationality of the writer in case someone feels it is relevant and it should be mentioned.

Likeminas (talk) 13:56, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Once again, you make good points Likeminas. I understand your position on including the "According to x historian." However, my main concern still remains open. Gonzalo Bulnes might be as much of a respected or "well known" historian in Chile, but from the information that was provided as reference for Bulnes (The "War of the Pacific" PDF file) there is no Works Cited page or a full list of where he got his information from. I've read other similar historical books, such as King Leopold's Ghost, and the author at the end of his book provides a full list of sources where he got his information from. In other words, how can we certify that Bulnes isn't making up the information if he hasn't provided official references to his work?--//MarshalN20\\ (talk) 01:22, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Gonzalo Bulnes delivered a lot of Primary sources like the english version of the 1873 treaty the Godoy papers, (the Chilean Plenipotentiary Minister in Lima) and many of the correspondence between the "parties involved": Lavalle, Godoy, Irigoyen etc. His interpretations of the facts are Chile-biased, yes. But we have to separate the facts from the interpretations and write facts as facts and views of the facts as views of the facts. As Likeminas stated, every writer, we also, shows a tendency to confound it. Diferent is the case when we want to reproduce the Chilean interpretation of the facts. Therefor is Gonzalo Bulnes (1851-1936) an excelent source: he was diputado, Senator and Ex-Plenipotentiary Minister and ex-Extraordinary Ambassador of Chile in the Argentine Republic. He was in midstream.

--Keysanger (talk) 12:48, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

What you mention further makes Bulnes seem to be a dubious source. He's a historian that was, according to what you mention, heavily involved in Chilean politics. The information Bulnes provides is important, however. Nonetheless, it still seems to be danger to base controversial points on Bulnes. The best thing to do is to find other reliable sources that can work alongside with Bulne's information.--//MarshalN20\\ (talk) 18:36, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Argentina's stance

I think that this particular section of the article would be better suited for the "Characteristics of the War" section. It really wasn't part of the "Crisis" as only the Peruvians and Bolivians knew about this. Chile did not find out about the possible integration of Argentina until later on. What do the rest of you think?--//MarshalN20\\ (talk) 03:41, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

No, I disagree, because Argentina was directly envolved problems leading to the war, and was a threath for Chile during the war. See Treaty 1881 between Chile and Argentina --Keysanger (talk) 11:21, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

IMO, If we want to make the article flow and be read in a chronological manner, including all relevant events leading up to the actual war, then, the subsection The Argentine stance seems well placed.

Likeminas (talk) 14:07, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Your point does not make sense Keysanger. Argentina might have been a threat to Chile throughout its existance as a nation, but it still had nothing to do with the crisis leading to the War of the Pacific. Likeminas, your argument is logical in terms of the chronology of the article. However, I still don't think that "Argentina's Stance" fits in correctly within the crisis section. Argentina wasn't part of the crisis leading up to the war (It might have been if Chile had found out about the possible Argentine intervention, but such a thing did not happen until the war was already over).--//MarshalN20\\ (talk) 02:17, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

As such, I think that we should develop a new section after "Crisis" in order to better fit in the matter. What I'm thinking is a section under a title similar to: "World Perspectives" or "World views on the war." Under that section we could:

1) Add Argentina's perspective on the war (and their possible involvement). 2) Add what the French and British thought about the war (They were by-standers throughout the whole war), and if they provided any support. 3) Add the US interests (they were also involved as by-standers, and later in the article it mentions that they provided support for Peru's continued resistance). What do the rest of you think? (Come up with a better title for the section, if you can or want).--//MarshalN20\\ (talk) 02:17, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree Marshal, it is a good idea such "World Perspectives", I think there are a lot to say about, but we will find many other places where Argentina has to be, at least, mentioned. I think a chapter "International law" could be interesting. I wrote something about conventions regarding Chile and J.Besadre mention the Red Cross in Peru. Both Chapters could be merged also. --Keysanger (talk) 12:04, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

the contribution was :

The Chilean government under President Aníbal Pinto Garmendia let print a book "El derecho de la guerra según los últimos progresos de la civilización" with the following laws:

• the International Declaration concerning the Laws and Customs of War. Brussels, 27 August 1874
• St. Petersburg Declaration of 1868 or full Declaration Renouncing the Use, in Time of War, of Explosive Projectiles Under 400 Grammes Weight
• International Red Cross founded 1863
• Instructions for the Government of Armies of the United States in the Field, General Order Nr 100

and intructed the officers of the army and the navy to comply with.

--Keysanger (talk) 12:12, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Sounds great Keysanger. So then it's settled (the section will be formed). Where should it be placed? After the "Crisis" section, or after the "War" section?--//MarshalN20\\ (talk) 18:39, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Obs

Hello.

• About new map. Only Chile has black border. Puna de Atacama area is less than
• Let's go with Quiroga, navy, census, and other incidents.
• Bolivia did not broke the 1874 Boundary Treaty. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arafael (talk • contribs) 21:14, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Arafael (talk) 13:33, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes. I put it red because the Border Peru-Bolivia and Bolivia-Argentina weren't changed as a direct consequence of the war.

It is arduous to copy the same borders because there are no references (towns, mountains) to be fixed. You corrected once a map. SVG is easier as png to change!

--Keysanger (talk) 21:20, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

P.S.: let the "References" at last.

I just noticed that too. There really is no good reason as to why the borders Peru-Bolivia and Bolivia-Argentina should be red. The black borders should be enough; the map's key has the black border as the borders after the war (which is still the case with the Peru-Bolivia and Bolivia-Argentina borders).

If the Puna de Atacama is larger, it should be made larger.

Arafael, could you elaborate on how Bolivia didn't break the 1874 Boundary Treaty?--//MarshalN20\\ (talk) 00:49, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Map

• See here Puna de Atacama before war is larger than this map
• 23th parallel lacks also. It is important because it's in 1874 treaty.
• All countries should have same borders. See here

Tax

• In 1873 "Antofagasta Nitrate & Railway Company" started to sign a contract with Bolivia. It was not approved by bolivian congress. It was not a valid contract yet.
• In 1874 was the treaty between Chile and Bolivia. "Antofagasta Nitrate & Railway Company" did not have a valid contract with Bolivia yet.
• In 1878 bolivian congress approved the contract. 10 cents tax only affects to "Antofagasta Nitrate & Railway Company", not all chilean companies.

Arafael (talk) 15:04, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

I see. So yes, the Puna de Atacama is larger than the one currently pictured. It's necessary to improve this.

I don't think the 23th parallel is necessary to be included in the picture. It would be a good addition, but not completely necessary.

Yes. I agree that all countries should have the same colored borders.

Regarding the tax, your statements seem logical. Can you provide sources that back your statements?--//MarshalN20\\ (talk) 16:38, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

• Bolivian source:

Read page 30: Embajador Jorge Gumucio Granier. La Paz, Bolivia. Revista Lazos Nro. 3

In 1878, Bolivian Minister, Serapio Reyes Ortiz, told Alejandro Fierro that the grant in 1873 for the "Antofagasta Nitrate & Railway Company" was not perfected in accordance with Bolivian law and therefore could not benefit from the Treaty of 1874.

• Chilean source:

Read pages 22 and 23: Los empresarios, la politica y la Guerra del Pacifico. Luis Ortega. Santiago de Chile. 1984

In 1878, Chilean senator Lorenzo Claro declares : "the law of February 14, 1878 does not violate the treaty of August 6, 1874, and that Bolivia has been just right to make".

Alejandro Fierro, was Chilean Foreign Minister and also shareholder from "Antofagasta Nitrate & Railway Company".

Arafael (talk) 19:46, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

I think you have made your point effectively Arafael. Those things you mention should be implemented into the article.--//MarshalN20\\ (talk) 23:27, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

References

1. http://www.la-razon.com/versiones/20080220_006188/nota_246_551329.htm
2. http://books.google.com.bo/books?id=WxppsTcZf7oC&q=%22la+expulsi%C3%B3n+de+los+chilenos.+Este+hecho,+h%C3%A1bilmente+fue+interpretado+por+el+gobierno+chileno+como%22&dq=%22la+expulsi%C3%B3n+de+los+chilenos.+Este+hecho,+h%C3%A1bilmente+fue+interpretado+por+el+gobierno+chileno+como%22&pgis=1
3. http://books.google.com.bo/books?q=Este+hecho%2C++fue+interpretado+por+el+gobierno+chileno%2C+como+declaratoria+de+guerra+y+como+causal+justificativa+parala+de+todo+el+litoral&btnG=Buscar+libros
4. http://books.google.es/books?id=ewQVh_YtBToC&pg=PA65&dq=declaracion+de+guerra+bolivia+chile+1+de+marzo&ei=cLT5SdODJZ3AzASGsPGHBw#PPA65,M1
5. http://www.archive.org/stream/storiadellaguer00caivgoog/storiadellaguer00caivgoog_djvu.txt
6. See Guillermo Lagos Carmona, Historia de las fronteras de Chile, page 65 ff, original:

   Artículo 1: Queda cortado todo comercio y comunicación con la República de Chile mientras dure la guera que ha promovido a Bolivia.

7. http://books.google.com.bo/books?q=Este+hecho%2C++fue+interpretado+por+el+gobierno+chileno%2C+como+declaratoria+de+guerra+y+como+causal+justificativa+parala+de+todo+el+litoral&btnG=Buscar+libros
8. http://www.archive.org/stream/storiadellaguer00caivgoog/storiadellaguer00caivgoog_djvu.txt
9. http://www.la-razon.com/versiones/20080220_006188/nota_246_551329.htm
10. http://books.google.com.bo/books?id=WxppsTcZf7oC&q=%22la+expulsi%C3%B3n+de+los+chilenos.+Este+hecho,+h%C3%A1bilmente+fue+interpretado+por+el+gobierno+chileno+como%22&dq=%22la+expulsi%C3%B3n+de+los+chilenos.+Este+hecho,+h%C3%A1bilmente+fue+interpretado+por+el+gobierno+chileno+como%22&pgis=1
11. Diego Barros Arana, Historia de la guerra del Pacífico (1879-1880), Volumen 1, page 115

Mediation of defensive/offensive issue.

Hi, I have volunteered as a neutral mediator per the wp:medcab request filed by MarshalN20. First off, I would like to know if everyone that is involved with this agrees to participate in the mediation. Please indicate so after your name.

• User:Keysanger Y --Keysanger (talk) 19:10, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
• User:LikeminasYLikeminas (talk) 18:55, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
• User:ArafaelYArafael (talk) 18:44, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
• User:MarshalN20Y--//MarshalN20\\ (talk) 02:42, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

If there are any other interested parties, please add your name and whether you agree or disagree with mediation. I'm not here to take sides, just to try to help you all work it out.

Does everyone also agree with framing the question as such:

"Was the Peru-Bolivia alliance defensive or offensive?" Please comment below if you disagree that that is the issue. Gigs (talk) 02:02, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Just a couple of points. The medcab case hasn't been correctly updated. New events have User:Keysanger providing sources that back part of his statement (It claims the alliance to be both Defensive and Offensive). However, the problem still remains the same: "Was the Peru-Bolivia alliance defensive or offensive?" In one of the above discussions, User:Keysanger wants to mention that the alliance was "Officially titled defensive," but does not want to say that the alliance "was officially defensive." Essentially, this is where the problem has gotten stuck. We need an arbitrator, in this case you Gigs, that can help identify a solution to the problem. Thanks for volunteering to take care of the case.--//MarshalN20\\ (talk) 02:42, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

I think the evidence that the treaty was defensive is well supported by various sources. Nonetheless, there's also evidence that the treaty was 'seen, thought or understood by Chile as offensive to its interests.

I believe that if both claims can be positevely verified through reliable sources, then, both claims should be presented in the article in order to comply with NPOV.

In any case, thanks for taking the time to mediate.]

Likeminas (talk) 18:55, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree with mediation. I disagree with the given framing and amend Marshal's view of my opinion. My statement is: Misplaced Pages shouldn't decide through logical und/or semantical analisys whether the pact was defensive/offensive because such analisys lacks the political, economic and military circumstances and implications of the pact. Misplaced Pages have to talk about interpretations of the pact, with the needed references of course. Having said this we have that the pact was interpreted as defensive and offensive and that the pact was "officially titled defensive" and not "officially defensive". I consider this mediation valid also for Treaty of defensive alliance between Peru and Bolivia of 1873, the main article. Thanks for volunteering to take care of the case. --Keysanger (talk) 19:09, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

What comes after this? Should we discuss the matter here or will you, Gigs, create a specific section were you'll monitor the discussion?--//MarshalN20\\ (talk) 19:52, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

"there's also evidence that the treaty was 'seen, thought or understood by Chile as offensive to its interests." Let me just say that I agree with that statement. We, as in me and Keysanger, reached consensus on the statement that Chile saw the treaty/alliance Peru-Bolivia as a menace to it. However, the question at hand is whether the treaty itself was offensive to Chile (was it aimed at Chile?) or whether if it was purely defensive (was it aimed at solely the protection of Peru and Bolivia from foreign countries?). This is the question that currently nobody has reached consensus with; as far as that concerns the matter, both me and User:Arafael agree that the alliance was purely defensive. Keysanger is of the opposing view. I'm not sure about Likeminas, though.--//MarshalN20\\ (talk) 19:58, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

I never said the pact was purely offensive. I have always said: It is a matter of interpretation. That is the point, interpretation. --Keysanger (talk) 20:12, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

This is an exact quote from you: "the actions Hilarion Daza took to turn the defensive alliance into an offensive alliance were successful."--//MarshalN20\\ (talk) 20:38, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

There is a difference:

• to turn the defensive alliance into an offensive alliance (Keysanger's)
• it was purely offensive

The first statement implies the dynamic of interpretation, opportunities and posibilities given by the pact and the circumtances, the second doesn't allow an alternative. I am thinking of the proverb Attack is the best means of defense. I attach great importance to state that both interpretations (defensive/offensive) are posible and of importance for the involved countries and therefore the sentence it was a defensive pact cann't be used. We have to say, like in Venezuela and Hitler-Stalin Pact regarding the official names "bolivarian Republic" and "non-aggression pact" the neutral one officially titled.

--Keysanger (talk) 21:03, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

It goes beyond the realm of reason to use "officially titled" as some sort of neutral ground to something that requires no neutral ground. Once again, a direct quote from you: "the dynamic of interpretation, opportunities and posibilities given by the pact and the circumtances." There can be no dynamic change for a defensive alliance/treaty that had no other use than that. The defensive alliance/treaty came into effect only after Chile declared war on Peru and Bolivia. Where's the "interpretation" there? Gigs, do you see any WP:OR in there or anything of personal "interpretation"?--//MarshalN20\\ (talk) 22:05, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Marshal: It goes beyond the realm of reason to use "officially titled" as some sort of neutral ground to something that requires no neutral ground

Keysanger: Neutral point of view is a core policy of Misplaced Pages, mandatory, non-negotiable, and to be followed in all articles.

Marshal: There can be no dynamic change for a defensive alliance/treaty that had no other use than that.

Keysanger: What kind of use, defensive or offensive?. We know that some historians maintain a different view than your. And Misplaced Pages's source are historians and not opinions of wikipedians.

Marshal:The defensive alliance/treaty came into effect only after Chile declared war on Peru and Bolivia.

Keysanger: That says nothing about the question defensive or offensive. Hitler invaded Russia 1941 and the Pact is still (2009) officially titled "non-aggression pact".

Marshal: Where's the "interpretation" there?

Keysanger: That is your personal opinion: The defensive alliance/treaty came into effect …. You again try to explain us why the Pact is defensive. We have to work with sources. Your explain is WP:OR

--Keysanger (talk) 23:35, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

That's just crazy talk Keysanger! You're using my statements and twisting yours in order to make yourself sound credible. That's just cheap.--//MarshalN20\\ (talk) 13:45, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Some sources favoring the POV that the treaty was not seen, thought, interpreted or undertood as purely defensive:

A comienzos de 1870, Perú pasaba por un mal período económico, ya que el guano -fertilizante natural del cual procedían las principales ganancias fiscales- estaba agotado, mientras el salitre, producto que lo reemplazaba, estaba en manos de particulares. La única solución era eliminar a nuestro país como competidor en la extracción del salitre, para traspasar la propiedad de las salitreras al Estado y poseer el monopolio. Fue a raíz de esto que Perú y Bolivia firmaron un tratado secreto ofensivo y defensivo contra Chile, donde ambas naciones se apoyarían en caso de guerra.

Translation

“In early 1870, Peru was going through a bad economic period, as the guano-derived natural fertilizer which produced major tax revenues was exhausted, while nitrate -its substitute- was in private hands.

The only solution was to remove Chile as a competitor in the extraction of saltpeter, and then transfer the ownership of the nitrate to the state and hold a monopoly. It was after this that Peru and Bolivia signed a secret treaty offensive and defensive against Chile, where both nations would support each other in the event of war.”

http://www.quepasa.cl/medio/articulo/0,0,38035857__147601895__1,00.html

…………The secret treaty of the of Febreaury 6, 1873 needs to no lengthy examination to ascertain its object; and the reserve in which it has been maintained confirms in the least suspicious mind the conviction that it was entered into solely to aid the schemes of the government of Bolivia, a perpetual conspirator of the treaty of 1866. In 1873, neither Peru nor Bolivia was threatened by the remotest danger of territorial dismemberment; and much less could it be foreseen that Chile cherished such idea, seeing that it had granted to Bolivia whatever that republic demanded in the convention of 1866- applauded by the Bolivian people as a splendid manifestation of Chilean generosity……….

……….If the treaty meant a general guarantee against any advance of a foreign power, why was the cooperation of Chile not sought, which has given more than one example of being the first to contribute, with its men and its wealth, towards the maintenance of the sovereignty of nations of a common origin?..............

...........The treaty of 1873 owed its origin –hidden as a shameful act – to the measures adopted by Peru at that epoch, to justify one of the most audacious and cruel spoliation witnessed by countries submitted to a regime of common respect toward the industry of all nations.

Peru desired to monopolize and appropriate the nitrate works; and in order to sustain its daily diminishing credit………

Manifest of the Chilean government to the representatives of friendly powers with reference to the declaration of war against Peru.

Alejandro Fierro

Chilean Ministry of Foreign affairs, Santiago April 12, 1879

http://books.google.com/books?id=MC8WAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA173&dq=secret+treaty+peru+bolivia&lr=&ei=x7hfSuGSHZWOyATs44jNCg

(starts on page 170)

Notwithstanding the fact that in 1873 Peru had induced Bolivia to sign a pact of alliance tacitly directed against Chile, the Peruvian government offered its mediation in the Bolivian-Chilean conflict, the origin of which was nothing more than Peru’s monopolistic nitrate policy, which had instigated Bolivia to disposes Chilean industries.

The mediation of Peru was accompanied by three suspicious circumstances: (1)

The denial on the part of the mediating minister of the existence of the secret treaty of which Chile had lately become aware; (2) Previous Peruvian demands compatible only with the pretensions of Bolivia; (3) Hurried war preparations of Peru, the Peruvian government meanwhile showing a desire to gain time.

These circumstances, with the fact that Bolivia did not manifest the slightest desire to facilitate an amicable adjustment, indicated to Chile that Peru was not working ‘bona fide’, but only with the intentin of strengthening the alliance.

http://books.google.com/books?id=4LYqAAAAYAAJ&pg=PP5&dq=The+New+York+times+-+Current+History+1922&ei=wchfSpfFBZjKzATf_eSVCw
(page 450)

The New York times - Current History (1922)

Likeminas (talk) 00:11, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

All of these sources further demonstrate that the Chileans viewed the Peru-Bolivia alliance as a menace. However, what Chile viewed is exactly what it is: Chile's POV. Chile's POV doesn't determine if an alliance is officially defensive or offensive. Why weren't Ecuador, Brazil, Colombia, Venezuela, Uruguay, and Paraguay also part of the alliance? (I exclude Argentina because they were in negotiations of joining at one point; but as I believe Gonzalo Bulnes points out, Argentineans weren't willing to create a defensive alliance and fight against Chile for the defense of Bolivian territory.). Here are the sources stating that the alliance was officially defensive (I have a New York Times one too, how weird):

• New York Times: "The defensive treaty of 1873 between Peru and Bolivia" (First column).
• History of the Latin-American nations By William Spence Robertson:
• 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."--//MarshalN20\\ (talk) 21:24, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

And then these are from Chilean sources. Yes, even some Chileans agree that the Peru-Bolivia defensive alliance was officially defensive (Not just "titled" defensive):

• Read in Republic of Chile. Foreign Ministry. Archive 1884: "Copia Tratado de Alianza Defensiva Perú-Bolivia (1873)"
• Read in Chilean newspaper : "Perú (quien intervino producto de un tratado defensivo..."--//MarshalN20\\ (talk) 13:49, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

I will say this just for the sake of clarification:

The first source listed from the Chilean foreign ministry is just the title of a document. Which, may I add, is inaccessible. So technically it is just titled that way.

The second source is a story from a movie about the war of the pacific.

Thus it cannot be considered by any means a scholarly written paper about the historical facts of the war.

In any case, I don't see anyone disputing that the official title of the treaty was defensive. Whether the treaty was intended or perceived to be other than defensive seems to be the issue here.

Likeminas (talk) 16:43, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

The second Chilean source is not a story from a movie. It's essentially an interview to Charly Varas, a movie-maker who has studied about the War of the Pacific. His statements are not necessarily the strongest around, but you can't dismiss his opinion as nothing. Also, indeed nobody is disputing "the title" of the defensive alliance. What's being disputed is whether the alliance was officially defensive or offensive. Keysanger, and now apparently you Likeminas, do not want for the treaty to be mentioned as "Officially defensive."--//MarshalN20\\ (talk) 21:11, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Please re-read my last paragraph.

Likeminas (talk) 22:19, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

I've read your last paragraph (your last sentence to be more correct). That's the issue I'm still discussing. The treaty/alliance was officially defensive throughout its existance. I think that by this point everyone agrees that Chile perceived the alliance and treaty as a menace. However, perceptions are not answers for the verifiable truth. For instance, here's a thought experiment:

• A color blind man enters a blue room. All he sees is gray, because he cannot see the color blue.
• The painters, who painted the room blue, say that the room is officially blue.
• Non-color blind people who enter the blue room also agree that the room is blue.

In this story, it should be accepted that the color blind man sees the blue as gray. However, it should be noted that the room was officially blue. This is exactly the same thing going on with the Peru-Bolivia defensive alliance:

• Chile sees the Peru-Bolivia defensive alliance as a menace. Chile sees it as offensive to it because it is currently having problems with Bolivia (who is part of the defensive treaty).
• Peru and Bolivia, the "painters," say that the treaty is officially defensive.
• Reliable sources demonstrate that people agree that the treaty/alliance was defensive.

The sources provided that claim the Peru-Bolivia alliance to be an offensive-defensive alliance are incorrect. If it is established that the Peru-Bolivia alliance is defensive, why is it correct for them to change the meaning of a document to their liking? Both the actions Peru took and the document itself are not offensive. The http://www.congreso.gob.pe/ntley/Imagenes/LeyesXIX/1866144.pdf Peru-Chile offensive-defensive alliance] stands as a point of comparisson. Not only is the Peru-Chile alliance "officially titled" offensive-defensive, but it is also officially used as an offensive-defensive alliance. Similarly, not only is the Peru-Bolivia alliance "officially titled" defensive, but it is also officially used as a defensive alliance.--//MarshalN20\\ (talk) 23:15, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Example of a real Offensive-Defensive Alliance

User:Arafael provided me with a real example of a true "Offensive-Defensive" Alliance: In 1866, Peru and Chile signed an offensive-defensive alliance.--//MarshalN20\\ (talk) 21:11, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

The Peru-Bolivia Defensive Alliance has nothing in common with a real "Offensive-Defensive" alliance. Which leads me once again to say: Chile saw the Peru-Bolivia alliance as a menace, but what they saw should not be taken as an "official" fact of the document. The official document of the Peru-Bolivia alliance certifies that the alliance was officially defensive. And, of course, that's not my original research; I have provided plenty of sources that also agree that the alliance was defensive. I'll go search for more if I have time.--//MarshalN20\\ (talk) 21:11, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Marshal,

Chile is blind and Peru can see.

Hmm, is that your understanding of Misplaced Pages's neutrality imperative?

--Keysanger (talk) 00:19, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

No. Why do you always evade the point? Intead of replying to the discussion with an effective response, you twist my words around and take things off-topic.--//MarshalN20\\ (talk) 00:25, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Please, help me to follow you. You wrote:

• A color blind man enters a blue room. All he sees is gray, because he cannot see the color blue.
• The painters, who painted the room blue, say that the room is officially blue.
• Non-color blind people who enter the blue room also agree that the room is blue.

Who is the blind man? ( ????? )

Who are the painters? (…Peru and Bolivia, the "painters,…")

Who are the Non-color blind people? (Reliable sources demonstrate that people agree …)

Please, help me and answer: Who is the blind man?

Do you think it is neutral to considerer Chile blind and Peru in health?

--Keysanger (talk) 00:48, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

You're still evading the point. Also, you're taking the example I've given and taking it too literally. I could also have said:

• A person who is scared of mice goes into a room filled with guinea pigs and claims them to be mice.
• The owners of the guinea pigs know that they are not mice, so they tell the person who is scared of the guinea pigs that they are not mice.
• People who are not scared of rodents enter the room and agree that these are not mice but that they are guinea pigs.

If I had used this example, would you be saying that Chile is scared of mice? In other words, you're making irrational statements and avoid to respond the problem.--//MarshalN20\\ (talk) 01:11, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Framing the issue

Since there doesn't seem to be agreement over the framing of the issue, I'd like you each to describe the issue, as you see it, as a short question that is 15 words or less. Please don't reply to or rebut other users framing of the question just yet. If you can't make the 15 word cutoff, that's OK, just keep it as short as possible. Gigs (talk) 13:25, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

• User:Keysanger : Which of the three options of start issue implements better with Misplaced Pages's neutrality imperative? --Keysanger (talk) 20:57, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
• User:Likeminas Several sources say that the secret treaty was titled as defensive, other sources say that it was intended or perceived to be other than defensive. Should we include both of these claims to maintain neutrality? Summarized by User:Gigs
• User:Arafael
• User:MarshalN20. Question: Was the Bolivia-Peru alliance officially a defensive alliance? (9 words)--//MarshalN20\\ (talk) 13:39, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

My position is rather simple; If there are reliable sources that the treaty was defensive, then that should be included in the article. On the other hand if there are realible sources stating that the treaty was iterpreted, seen or thought as other than defensive then that should be also included. By balancing POV's from all sides we'll reach a NPOV.

In other words, the issue (in my opinion) is mainly about sources and NPOV.
Likeminas (talk) 14:38, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

This section isn't really about positions, it's about the framing of the issue. Your position is an answer to a question, what's the question? I encourage you to go back and try to formulate a short question that your position is one possible answer to. I think it will help us work toward a consensus by helping to see what thought processes are leading people to the positions they are taking, in a short and simple form. Gigs (talk) 18:35, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Ok here's my question: Should all the information verifiable by reliable sources be included in the article in order to comply with the policy of neutrality?

Likeminas (talk) 18:53, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

That question could use some work. What is the position that you believe violates the neutrality policy? Can you formulate a question that both implies your position, and the alternative position that you believe violates the policy? If it takes a little more than 15 words, that's OK, but try to keep it short. Gigs (talk) 19:19, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

To answer your first question; If there is more than 1 POV regarding an issue, and the article presents only 1 POV then the neutrality policy is violated.

Let me put foward another question, perhaps, this one will dissipate confusion;

Several sources support the thesis that the secret treaty was titled as defensive. On the other hand, there are other sources that support the thesis that the treaty was intended or perceived to be other than defensive.
Should we include both of these claims? ===> 7 words ;)

Likeminas (talk) 20:16, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

I have summarized this above, make sure you are OK with it. I guess we'll give you a pass on the 15 word thing. :) Gigs (talk) 20:38, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes I'm OK with it. Thanks for summarizing it.

Likeminas (talk) 22:12, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Sources issue

We first have to establish what we have reached, that became diffuse after my discussion with Marshal. I hope we agree that there are enough reliable sources for both sides. "The treaty was defensive" and "the treaty was offensive and defensive" and "the treaty was interpreted as offensive by the Chilean government" or similar. Likeminas, Marshal and Keysanger (me) agree that if such sources exists they have to be presented to the reader. I think there is concordance about. To let the sources unpublished would be an attempt against the Misplaced Pages.

Start issue

The second issue is about the start of the paragraph:

• the pact was defensive
• the pact was officially defensive
• the pact was officially titled defensive

I think that is the real issue now, and the question is: Which of the three options implement better with Misplaced Pages's neutrality imperative.

--Keysanger (talk) 20:57, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Gigs, do you understand Spanish text? --Keysanger (talk) 21:36, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

No. Keep in mind I'm not here to arbitrate facts, just to help you all reach consensus. Gigs (talk) 22:22, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

We are talking at cross-purposes. Gigs wants to obtain a binding question to answer. I propose to fix concordances and Likemina and Marshal discusse about defensive issues and every one sets different aims to be reached. It doesn't make sense. We need to schedule a discussion path.

--Keysanger (talk) 00:12, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Let Gigs do his job at his own pace. You're not the mediator here, Keysanger.--//MarshalN20\\ (talk) 00:22, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Comment on new section

I have re-named the newly created section. I don’t agree with the World perspectives and much less with the forked section Argentina.

Argentina -as it is well documented- played a very prominent role priorior, during and after the war. It was not a mere World viewer, but an active negotiator and possible member of the secret Bolivia-Peru alliance. It’s also well known that Argentina had an ongoing dispute with Chile for territories in Patagonia.

Here’s how the archive of the Argentine foreign ministry puts it:

Sin embargo, a pesar de su neutralidad en la guerra del Pacífico, las autoridades argentinas no dejaron de jugar un rol importante en el delicado equilibrio de fuerzas del Cono Sur, y especialmente relevante en relación a las naciones "menores" en términos de poder en la subregión. Así, la cancillería argentina emprendió una serie de acciones diplomáticas apuntadas a evitar que Chile pudiera obtener grandes ganancias, sobre todo territoriales, a costa de los países vencidos, Perú y Bolivia. En la base de la actitud argentina estaba el temor a que, luego de la victoria sobre Perú y Bolivia, Chile buscara expandirse sobre territorio argentino. La percepción predominante en los hombres del gobierno argentino, durante las décadas de 1870 y 1880, respecto de su situación de inferioridad de fuerzas militares en comparación con las de Chile había contribuido a exacerbar dicho temor.

However, despite its neutrality in the Pacific war, the Argentine authorities did not fail to play an important role in the delicate balance of forces in the Southern Cone, and particularly relevant in relation to the "minor" nations in terms of power in the sub-region. Thus, the Argentine Foreign Ministry launched a series of diplomatic actions aimed at preventing that Chile could gain big profits, especially land, at the expense of the defeated countries, Peru and Bolivia.

On the basis of that attitude Argentina was under the fear that after the victory over Peru and Bolivia, Chile could seek to expand on Argentine territory. The prevailing perception among men in the Argentine government during the 1870s and 1880s, for their inferior status of military forces in comparison with those of Chile helped to exacerbate the fear.

I believe the section called Role of Argentina in the war, Argentina's stance or something of that kind is more appropriate.

I, however, will leave the other sections under characteristics of the war.

Likeminas (talk) 01:05, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Consensus was reached by both me and Keysanger in creating this new section and including Argentina into it. This is not a content fork as no new articles have been created. Argentina did not have much of a role in the "crisis" prior to the War of the Pacific. I believe to have read somewhere that Chile contacted Brazil and planned to create some sort of alliance, but things also did not work out. According to your logic, Brazil should also have a section in the "crisis." You don't WP:Own the article to be moving around things at your own will without priorly discussing things.--//MarshalN20\\ (talk) 01:22, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

• All unassessed articles
• Start-Class Peru articles
• Top-importance Peru articles
• Start-Class Chile articles
• High-importance Chile articles
• WikiProject Chile articles
• C-Class military history articles
• C-Class South American military history articles
• South American military history task force articles
• Old requests for peer review
• Selected anniversaries (February 2005)
• Selected anniversaries (February 2006)
• Selected anniversaries (April 2009)