| Revision as of 20:37, 7 July 2009 editKeysanger (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Rollbackers10,876 edits →Secret: Do you affirm that Argentina was not informed about the pact? Do you have reliable sources for?← Previous edit | Revision as of 21:21, 7 July 2009 edit undoMarshalN20 (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers15,094 editsm →SecretNext edit → | ||
| Line 353: | Line 353: | ||
| Do you affirm that Argentina was not informed about the pact? Do you have reliable sources for? --] (]) 20:37, 7 July 2009 (UTC) | Do you affirm that Argentina was not informed about the pact? Do you have reliable sources for? --] (]) 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.--] (]) 21:21, 7 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
| == List of Likeminas and Marshal arguments == | == List of Likeminas and Marshal arguments == | ||
Revision as of 21:21, 7 July 2009
 | This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Referencing and citation: criterion not met
Coverage and accuracy: criterion met
 | 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)
- - 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
- - "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:
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:
- http://grflib.svnt.com/banners/personales2.gif
- File:Guerra-del-pacifico-01-a.svg
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
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:
- the business competition between Callao and Valparaiso after the independence of Peru and Chile, the Peruvian tax for ships entering Valparaiso
- the Boundary treaty of 1866, 24°S and the 50%-50% tax, and his failure
- the nationalization of the guano in Peru at the beginnig of the 1870s and the desolate Peruvian budget
- the superiority of the Peruvian navy at the beginnig of the 1870s and the Mejillones incident (Quiroga-Putsch intent)
- the Chilean order for two ironclads in UK
- the secret alliance treaty, called defensive, the attempt to bring Argentina, the Peruvian fear that Brasil joints Chile.
- the Boundary treaty of 1874 and the prohibition to raise the tax
- 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
- the Bolivian raise of Tax, the occupation of Antofagasta
- 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)
- 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)
- 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 6,937,077 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)
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)
List of Likeminas and Marshal arguments
I will bring forward your arguments as I understand it.
- (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.
- (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.
- (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.
- (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.
- (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
- Misplaced Pages is not there to approve or disapprove (misunderstood/understood) the "Chilean" interpretation of the pact.
- The conditional "if" tries to explain why the pact was defensive. That is original research.
- Sources are to be considered, I accept it. Let me say later more about Likeminas's reasons.
- Marshal tries again to "explain" why the pact is defensive. That is original research.
- 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?
- Do you think that you can explain us why the pact is defensive?
- 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:
- how reliable is the source
- what says the source
- 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)
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)
Categories:- 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)