Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 15:10, 1 August 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.

Archives

Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15

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)

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)

I'd like to see what Arafel says before we go on, I will leave a message on their talk page that we are waiting on them. I know this process is a little slow, but we don't want one person to come back at the end and say that they completely disagree with the direction we've taken. Gigs (talk) 00:59, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

We may need to move on without Arafael. What do you all think? Gigs (talk) 13:01, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree. He'll catch up with things once he returns from wherever he may be (I'll update him if he asks).--$%MarshalN20%$ (talk) 14:45, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Moving On

We have waited several days for Arafel to provide input, I think we should move on.

Does everyone agree with the following statement?

• The pact was officially titled defensive

It doesn't seem to me that this fact is in dispute, ignoring the matter of the true nature of the alliance (we'll get to that next), right?

Right. The title of the of pact is defensive.--$%MarshalN20%$ (talk) 13:28, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Right "the pact was officially titled defensive" --Keysanger (talk) 19:56, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Next up:

• The pact was officially defensive.

I know this one is indeed in dispute, and is almost the entire dispute. I have a few comments/proposals:

• Is declaring this one way or another of critical importance to the article?

• Could you simply attribute who considers it officially defensive and who doesn't with explicit in text references?
  • For example, "Dr. Scholar says its officially defensive, while Historian Buff, and Bob Ross dispute this claim, saying it was defensive in name only."

Please respond to each comment as a separate issue. Please try to keep it short and don't let it turn into a long debate here, so that we can keep it readable. Gigs (talk) 02:03, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

1. Yes, it is of critical importance to the article to establish that the alliance between Peru and Bolivia was officially defensive. It's not a matter of common sense. First, in the text of the pact itself there is no specific nation mentioned, and the whole treaty is based on the general concept of protecting territory (not attacking or invading another country's territory): "The character of this treaty was general and had nothing special or concrete" (Page 107, Chap. XVI). Second, the alliance came into effect only after Chile declared war (Despite Bolivia's attempt to force Peru to activate the alliance when Chile invaded Antofagasta, which was prior to a declaration of war). Third, neither Peru or Bolivia ever went into the offensive. Fourth, Peru didn't want Argentina into the same alliance it had with Bolivia, because (as mentioned earlier) it was too broad. Peru didn't want a war with Brazil, and so they proposed to sign a different treaty with Argentina that would only be aimed at Chile. "Peru therefore tried to allay any possible Brazilian suspicions by specifically limiting to Chile the application of the proposed Treaty of Alliance" (Page 17).
2. It seems to me that the matter is even simpler than that. Chile (for the most part), and most of its historians see the treaty as a menace and offensive to Chile. Peru and Bolivia (for the most part), and most of their historians see the treaty as merely defensive (not aimed at anyone). The third-party media is also split (one favor the Chilean POV, the other the Peru-Bolivia POV). I don't have any problem at all with mentioning the POV of Chile. The problem arises when the other users want to take the POV of Chile and impose it as the truth. Now, you may ask how they do this. The response is simple, for instance, User:Keysanger says that treaties are neither defensive or offensive, so he wants no mention of either. However, the problem is that if you take that part out, we're left with "Secret alliance" (Not "Secret defensive alliance"). A "secret alliance" points out the wrong message (a "normal alliance" which is always interpreted as offensive), and inadvertedly favors the Chilean POV. I repeat once more, I'm not against mentioning the Chilean POV of the treaty in the article, but the problem is that I don't agree with favoring it as the factual side of the story through inadverted (callint it neither defensive or offensive) or purposefilled measures (calling it offensive and defensive).--$%MarshalN20%$ (talk) 06:21, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

I read somewhere "Keysanger says that ...", "Keysanger means this ...". I want to state clearly and without any compromise that I represent my self and I do not allow any person to represent my opinion in this discussion. I warn the partner that such "representations" may be phantasies of the writers.

--Keysanger (talk) 18:05, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Keysanger's opinion:

• Yes, it is of critical importance. For the Chilean government was the pact one of the causes of the war, as Mariano Paz Soldan (a Peruvian author) wrote in "Narracion historica de la guerra de Chile contra Peru y Bolivia", page 124-125 : El motivo en que mas inculca Chile, y es el tema de sus argumentos contra el Perú, es el tratado secreto de alianza de 1873. (translation: The by Chile most inculcated cause, und theme of his arguments against Peru, is the secret treaty of alliance of 1873). Paz Soldan deduced it from a "Manifest of the Chilean government to the representatives of friendly powers with reference to the declaration of war against Peru", to explain them the reasons of the war. Therefore it must be accepted that the treaty had, has and will have different interpretations, as any treaty, and no one of the interpretations should be "preferred" in Misplaced Pages in any way. It must precisely stated that the treaty was (so-called/called/titled/officially titled) defensive. The sentences "the defensive treaty" or "the officially defensive treaty" are intolerable.

• There are 1 italian, 3 US-american and 5 Chilean reliable sources that confirm that the treaty can be and was interpreted as defensive and/or as offensive or as a menace for Chile:

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

the treaty is called (only) defensive-offensive, the authors don't go into details.

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

the treaty is called (only) defensive-offensive, the authors don't go into details.

3) Charles de Varigny, La Guerra del Pacifico, page 18, here Relevant Text

the treaty is called defensive-offensive and go into details, that is why is considered offensive.

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

the treaty is called defensive-offensive and go into details, that is why is considered offensive.

5) Diego Barros Arana, "Historia de la Guerra del Pacifico", parte 1, capitulo III pag. 31, Relevant Text

the treaty is called defensive-offensive and go into details, that is why is considered offensive. (not in the cited passage)

6) Chilean Magazin "Que Pasa" here Relevant Text

the treaty is called defensive-offensive and go into details, that is why is considered offensive.

7) 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 here Relevant Text

the treaty is not called defensive or offensive but explain why it is considered a 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 and go into details.

8) The New York Times - Current History (1922) here (page 450) Relevant Text

the NYT call the treaty a pact of alliance tacitly directed against Chile

9) Tommaso Caivano, "Storia de lla guerra d'America fra Chilì, il Perù e la Bolivia", here page 252, Relevant Text

Tommasso Caivano (9) doesn't call the treaty offensive, only reproduces Diego Barros Arana's view and states that a treaty is subject of interpretations. That is what I want to state.

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 use reliable sources.

--Keysanger (talk) 21:12, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Marshal, do you believe that Keysanger's selection of sources here is biased, or is it representative? Gigs (talk) 16:53, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Well Gigs, thanks for asking. Yes, I think he has a made a rather biased source selection. Just as I mentioned in my prior post, Peruvian and Bolivian sources are often going to support the view of the pact being solely defensive while Chilean sources are going to be supporting the oppinion of the secret alliance treaty was aimed at Chile. Keysanger has brought up 5 Chilean sources, maybe expecting to make his source-list bigger, but those sources themselves are biased with Chilean POV; just as Bolivian and Peruvian sources would be tainted with Peruvian and Bolivian POV on the subject. Therefore, only the "1 italian, 3 US-american" sources can serve to attempt to "certify" his claim. Equally, I can provide 4 neutral sources stating that the alliance was merely defensive:

1. History of the Latin-American nations By William Spence Robertson:
2. New York Times: "The defensive treaty of 1873 between Peru and Bolivia" (First column).
3. 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."
4. 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."

The problem is that this "battle of the sources" can go on without end. As such, consensus is certainly needed in order to figure out how to find a solution to the matter. My consensus proposal, which I stated in my last post, was to:

1. Mention that Chile viewed the secret defensive alliance treaty between Peru and Bolivia as a menace (aimed at Chile).
2. Mention that despite Chilean worries, the secret defensive alliance treaty was only used defensively.

I think this is a good consensus that agrees with the sources and would make everybody happy. However, I have proposed this before also, but User:Keysanger did not want to admit that the alliance treaty was used defensively. As such, if Keysanger still challenges the statement, I would like to see an explanation as to how the secret defensive alliance treaty was not used defensively. I would also like to ask you, Gigs, if the consensus I propose is rational (But only if you deem it appropiate to respond).--$%MarshalN20%$ (talk) 18:27, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Your point number 2 is still making a declaration of fact, on what seems to be a contentious issue. Could it be reworded to be more like item 1, reflecting that there are different opinions depending on who you ask? Gigs (talk) 13:00, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

I have already explained myself Gigs. Now the ball is on their park: What is their evidence (sourced) on how the alliance was used offensively? I already explained my points, and can provide references for them if need be, as to how Peru and Bolivia used their alliance defensively (not offensively). Can Keysanger or anybody else please explain how Peru and Bolivia used the alliance offensively?--$%MarshalN20%$ (talk) 15:05, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

This isn't a court, we aren't piling evidence for one thing or the other and then determining truth. If a statement is contentious among reliable sources, we need to just report who views it one way, and who views it the other way, and refrain from asserting one or the other is reality. We can let the reader make up their own mind after presenting them the evidence in the most neutral way possible. This is why your statement 2 is problematic in terms of finding a consensus here, since it asserts the truth of one of the contentious positions. Gigs (talk) 18:52, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

You're not understanding my point Gigs. There is no proof (evidence) that the alliance was ever used offensively. Or, at least, I have seen no proof that demonstrates how the alliance was used offensively. Keysanger has provided no evidence whatsoever in regards as to how the alliance was used offensively. All of the sources he provides repeat the same thing: Chile viewed the alliance as offensive. However, none of them demonstrate any offensive usage of the treaty at any point. ON THE OTHER HAND, history shows that the alliance only came into effect after Chile declared war (There are plenty of reliable sources for that). You're supposed to be the mediator! You're essentially the judge, because judges are mediators. Yes, I know this is not a courtroom, but how can you attempt to "neutraly depict" something that has no explanation from the other side?--$%MarshalN20%$ (talk) 19:30, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

To point 1) I have to correct that not only the Chilean Government but different international reliable sources interpreted the treaty as defensive and/or offensive and as a menace for Chile.

To point 2) I think Marshal wants to judge the treaty with ethical values. He wants to say "the treaty was good and defensiv" but that is not possible in a encyclopaedia unless it is a issue without controversy and this is not the case.

Now Marshal wants references for other issue "the use of the treaty". We can discuss also about "the consecuences of the treaty" (good/bad) or "international impact of the treaty" (important/irrevelant), or "the importance of the treaty in the logistic of the war" (high/low) or … . That may be very interesting issues, but I fear I haven't enough time for.

We are discussing now whether the

• treaty was defensive
• treaty was officially defensive
• treaty was officially titled defensive

Let's hang in there. I will not abuse of Gigs's friendliness and we (M and K) have a lot of work to do. Later we can look for further themes to discuss.

--Keysanger (talk) 19:58, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

And yet you keep evading the question. How was the treaty used offensively? Obviously, if it's a "Defensive and Offensive" treaty, there must be either mention of both things in the treaty itself or there is evidence that demonstrates how the treaty was used offensively. There is plenty of evidence showing the treaty was used solely as a defensive treaty. Where is the evidence of it being used offensively?--$%MarshalN20%$ (talk) 20:25, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Which leads to 3 points that have been established:

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

And one that is still not being answered:

1. The treaty, and the alliance, was only used defensively.

And I expect for all of these things to be resolved before any solution can be reached.--$%MarshalN20%$ (talk) 20:30, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi Marshal,

Do you agree that

1. The treaty was officially titled defensive.
2. The treaty was viewed by Chile as a menace (offensive to it).
3. Professional opinion is split on whether the alliance was solely defensive or whether it was offensive to Chile and defensive?

(pay attention to "offensive to Chile", it is more precisely than to any country)

I, Keysanger, agree this 3 points and as far as I'm concerned, we have resolved the case if you agree.

About the new question, The treaty, and the alliance, was only used defensively. I don't know. I never heard such opinion. You are the first one but you live and learn. You know already my references. Let me know your refrences with author name, publisher, year of publishing, total number of pages of the book, page number of the passage and the relevant passage. Please don't resent me that bits and pieces, such work is usual for enciclopedic works.

I agree also: If a statement is contentious among reliable sources, we need to just report who views it one way, and who views it the other way, and refrain from asserting one or the other is reality. We can let the reader make up their own mind after presenting them the evidence in the most neutral way possible.

--Keysanger (talk) 00:12, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

No. I agree to:

1. The treaty was officially titled defensive.
2. The treaty was viewed by Chile as a menace (offensive to it).
3. Professional opinion is split on whether the alliance was solely defensive or whether it was offensive and defensive.
4. The treaty was only used defensively.

These are the terms of my agreement.--$%MarshalN20%$ (talk) 00:33, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

I think that is incorrect but if Gigs wants to mediate also this issue, I don't mind. You have to deliver the references for your item (4). --Keysanger (talk) 01:45, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

According to page 89 of "Bolivia's case for the League of nations," The Treaty of Alliance of 1873 gave Peru the right to consider whether the casus foederis had been involved. The casus foederis of the alliance, presented by President Prado, was activated only after Chile declared war. The alliance was used only defensively.--$%MarshalN20%$ (talk) 02:07, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

You must write the text passage supporting your statement. --Keysanger (talk) 15:10, 1 August 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)

Consensus is not reached by only two contributors. Even it there was consesus, I dispute that consensus.

Argentina surely had much of a role priorior to the war. Approval by the Argentine Chamber of Deputies under a secret session in regards to the entry of that country into the Bolivia-Peru alliance is not merely a world perspective, but rather direct involvement in the war.

If you can find any reliable source that says anything about negotiations between Chile and Brazil to form an alliance or anything of that sort, by all means feel free to post it.

BTW, I never thought I owned the article, but I believe I improved and expanded the section.

Likeminas (talk) 01:41, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

You moved around the sections to your liking. You even edited your message here on the talk page in order to justify your moves, for your original message only stated that you would move the Argentinean section (not the World Perspective section). You should be more careful when using WP:BOLD on articles where there are several discussions regarding different controversial things.--//MarshalN20\\ (talk) 13:51, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Do I need to ask you for permission to move things around?

I can edit my own edits here on the talk page as many times as I please, just like you do it.

By the way, refrain from adding selective tags on my edits. The verification you need was posted twice. Here and on the article.

I will ask, and by now you should know this better, that as a courtesy for your fellow contributors, you give a brief edit summary of the changes you make.

For your comprehension and cooperation. Thanks.

Likeminas (talk) 13:35, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Don't talk about courtesy if you're trying to defend WP:BOLD, which goes completely against any kind of courtesy. "refrain from adding selective tags on my edits": clear example of WP:Own. I've given edit summaries for edits that required such summaries; I'm not going to do it for all of them as it is not required by Misplaced Pages.--//MarshalN20\\ (talk) 14:54, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Yeah sure. I own the article. The revision history has mostly my user name on it.

Likeminas (talk) 15:03, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

You're evading the point. You don't "own" the information you provide for the article. It's not "yours" by the time you add it in.--//MarshalN20\\ (talk) 15:29, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Some fiendly policy reminder for Marshall:

Always fill in the summary field. This is considered an important guideline. Even a short summary is better than no summary. An edit summary is even more important if you delete any text; otherwise, people may question your motives for the edit. Also, mentioning one change but not another one can be misleading to someone who finds the other one more important; add "and misc." to cover the other change(s).

Accurate summaries help people decide whether it is worthwhile for them to check a change. We've found that summaries often pique the interest of contributors with expertise in the area. This may not be as necessary for "minor changes", but "fixed spelling" would be nice even then.

WP:FILLINEDITSUMMARY

Likeminas (talk) 15:23, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

I haven't deleted anything in the article. I give enough information on edit summaries when I feel that they are required/important; taking also into account I'm not the only one who doesn't provide as much attention to the edit summaries.--//MarshalN20\\ (talk) 15:29, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Lead

There apparently is, yet again, another problem. This time it comes from the lead. This is what I have recently written for the lead:

The War of the Pacific, occurring from 1879-1883, was a conflict between Chile and the joint forces of Bolivia and Peru. Also known as the "Saltpeter War," the war arose from disputes over the control of territory that contained substantial mineral-rich deposits. After a taxation controversy in a territory disputed by Chile and Bolivia, the crisis worsened following the Chilean invasion of Bolivian territory and the discovery of a secret defensive alliance between Bolivia and Peru. The war officially began on 1879, after the Chilean declaration of war and the activation of the casus foederis of the defensive treaty between Peru and Bolivia. The conclusion of the conflict ultimately led to the Chilean annexation of the Peruvian Tarapaca department and Arica province, as well as the Bolivian department of Litoral, leaving Bolivia as a landlocked country.

However, Keysanger reverted this and instead wrote this for the lead:

The War of the Pacific, occurring from 1879-1883, was a conflict between Chile and the joint forces of Bolivia and Peru. Also known as the "Saltpeter War", the war arose from disputes over the control of territory that contained substantial mineral-rich deposits. The crisis worsened after a taxation controversy in a territory disputed by Bolivia and Chile, Chile invaded Bolivian territory and discovered the existance of a secret alliance between Bolivia and Peru. The war officially began on 1879, after the Bolivian declaration of war and the activation of the casus foederis of the defensive treaty between Peru and Bolivia. The conclusion of the conflict ultimately led to the Peruvian and Bolivian cession of the Peruvian Tarapaca department and Arica province, as well as the Bolivian department of Litoral, leaving Bolivia as a landlocked country.

Instead of actually improving the lead, he creates a horrible grammatic error and deletes/adds things based on his POV. Once again, how can WP:GF be assumed after such edits?--//MarshalN20\\ (talk) 13:47, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Here are some points of comparisson:

1. How is changing the original sentence an improvement?

• • Original: After a taxation controversy in a territory disputed by Chile and Bolivia, the crisis worsened following the Chilean invasion of Bolivian territory and the discovery of a secret defensive alliance between Bolivia and Peru.
  • Keysanger: The crisis worsened after a taxation controversy in a territory disputed by Bolivia and Chile, Chile invaded Bolivian territory and discovered the existance of a secret alliance between Bolivia and Peru.

1. Note how Keysanger deletes the part of "defensive" in order to push his POV.
2. He changed the part dealing with the declaration of war; Chile was the first country to officialy declare war, that has been discussed in the past. The "Crisis" section explains the matter with more detail.

• • Original: The war officially began on 1879, after the Chilean declaration of war
  • Keysanger: The war officially began on 1879, after the Bolivian declaration of war...--14:05, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Picture of Military Commanders

I'm thinking about creating a picture of the most "well known" or outstanding commanders of the War of the Pacific. I'd be using Misplaced Pages's picture of them, since most of their pictures here are past their copyright status (thus leaving them free for public use). However, I'd like to hear some opinions. Should I make a large combination of all the military commanders, or split them up among the nations (One for Chile, one for Peru, and one for Bolivia, and maybe one for the foreigners)? Any other opinions would be good.--//MarshalN20\\ (talk) 20:38, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Unreliable sources that need to be checked and removed

Marshall recently created a highly POV section, using "sources" from a ultra nationalistic website called Peru Heroico or "Heroic Peru" They should be removed immediately as per WP:RS and WP:NPOV

http://peruheroico.com/inicio/plinio-esquinarila-bellido/86-plinio-esquinarila-bellido/175-inglaterra-uso-a-chile-contra-el-peru.html

Likeminas (talk) 14:04, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

For those interested in this discussion, Marshall asked on the RSN whether this "source" can be considered reliable.

In my opinion this "source" not only is unreliable, but also not neutral.

In any case, if we're going to be using ultra nationalistic websites, there's tons of material regarding the war of the pacific on http://www.soberaniachile.cl/

Do we really want add some info from nationalistic websites while compromising the quality of the article?

To me the answer is a no-brainer.

Likeminas (talk) 18:11, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

You're the one claiming the "Peru Heroico" website to be "ultranationalistic." The information being used from that website is backed up by a series of other sources, as provided in the Relible Sources page. You're the one threatening to use something that even you call "nationalistic." Why do you not assume and why do you threaten to spam the article with nationalistic bias? Gigs, I believe it is important for you to take note of how this user threatens to spam the article with nationalistic bias.--//MarshalN20\\ (talk) 18:33, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

I have sent the information to the RSN discussion page, so I'll abide to whatever comes out of it (Negative or positive); if you can't, then that's you who is breaking wiki policy and not me. Especially if you begin to use what even you call nationalistic propaganda.--//MarshalN20\\ (talk) 18:33, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

As per your understanding of reliability, Heroic Peru should be as reliable as SoberaniaChile.cl

Also, when you update the links (if you do) then, I would like to check them against the same statements you included from Peru Heroico. Hopefully they're fully backed as you claim them to be.

I'm also tagging this one

Another ultranationalistic website that goes as far as calling it La guerra inglesa or the "English war"

Likeminas (talk) 18:59, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

You keep making mention of it being "ultranationalistic," while several other sources also agree that the British involvement in the war was too great to ignore.--//MarshalN20\\ (talk) 21:58, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Warning to the reader: POV-tag

We have unsolved issues :

• first declaration of war Chile/Bolivia
• color of the boundary in map red/black
• reliable sources (peruheroico, nuestroperu)
• defensive/offensive was/was called
• sources for statements in occupation of Lima
• Role of Argentina

The present version of article reflects mainly Marshals view of the facts. Attempts to improve the article has been reverted by Marshal. I have to warn the reader about a biased description of the facts.

--Keysanger (talk) 23:01, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

What are the "attempts to improve" that you speak of?--//MarshalN20\\ (talk) 23:04, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Clearly, Marshall is tweaking the article and pushing his POV now. What's more aggravating, is that he's doing so with highly questionable websites such as www.peruheroico.com and even adding Chilean racism into it.

Likeminas (talk) 23:28, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

How am I tweaking the article? Simply provide an explanation. Also, racism in Chile is a reality, and part of the War of the Pacific.--//MarshalN20\\ (talk) 23:32, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Tweaking as in making major changes -not precisily in good faith- that make look Chile as the racist, aggresive tool of Britain.

But it's alright. as long as you make it with reliable sources, I'm fine with it.

By the way, if you're going to include citations to google books, please include the page number. We really need that info to check for accuracy.

Likeminas (talk) 23:48, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

You're going to tell me that Chile isn't racist? Also, it's not me that says Chile was used as a tool. James G. Blaine said it. I'll use the page number on the books if I remember to include it. I'm doing all edits on WP:GF, and if you don't believe that then you're breaking WP:GF.--//MarshalN20\\ (talk) 23:58, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

You know very well, you've made the latest edits not with good faith in mind. But we'll to follow WP:GF we'll assume or at least pretend you aren't.

by the the way, adding the page number is not optional.

Likeminas (talk) 00:05, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

How is preventing Misplaced Pages from getting blamed from plagiarism not WP:GF? You have problems buddy. I'm simply adding information backed by sources, but for some reason you find them to be an attack against Chile. It's really sad.--//MarshalN20\\ (talk) 00:26, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

First off, I'm not your buddy. Simply adding information backed by sources? From utral nationalistic sources from Peru Heroico? That's laughabable and pitifull to say the least.

Likeminas (talk) 00:37, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

You should take a time out, breath in deeply, count to three, and then think about what you're saying. Why are you getting so aggressive? I already stated, if the Reliable Sources discussion turns out to favor your POV, I will not contest it. Why are you getting so worked up about it?--00:52, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Marshal leads almost always every objective discussion into a personal issue. He ignores the arguments of the other people and starts dubious sentences about the opponent:

• You seem to be a little agitated
• Why are you getting so aggressive?
• You should take a time out, breath in deeply, count to three
• You're going to tell me that Chile isn't racist?

mainly if he cann't find a answer to the problems of his argumentation. To my contribution he answered:

…

*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

That has nothing to do with the problem of the neutrality. What a sense makes the sentence "Chile is scared of mice"?.

Also about the secret clausel of the alliance treaty he did this statement, not in the right ballpark, I asked him again and he tried to correct but he missed by a mile . I asked him to finish the discussion and to reach an agreement about the issue and a second time in but he never answered.

That are only two flowers in Marshal's garden. He led the way with non-Neutrality statements (Chile=blind, Peru=healthy) , dubious sources (peruheroico.com) and individual-related expressions (You seem to be a little agitated) or to deviate the discussion to themes beside the point (You're going to tell me that Chile isn't racist?) .

On this way we will never improve the article. We have to go on and get a consensus in this article, based on the 5 pillars of wikipedia.

I propose to lock the article page until we get an agreement. Or at least we should agree not to makes changes that could be contested.

We will discusse the issues one after the other.

The POV-tag remain in.

--Keysanger (talk) 13:31, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Keysanger, I am truly surprised by the little carnival you have going on in your head. One of the first things to clear up is that Likeminas, and neither you, are my "opponents." We're all wikipedians here, and I'm generally attempting to assume WP:GF with your edits (Specially yours, for the least Likeminas has more sincere edits); if you two were my "opponents" then this whole community would begin to crumble. In fact, using some reverse psychology, why do you see me as your "opponent" Keysanger? Is it because you have a desire to start some kind of war? Wise words of Keysanger: "I promise you, you will ignite the war again if you try to coerce my freedom to cooperate with Misplaced Pages."

Also, I find it quite funny how you keep attempting to take my examples (The painter and, later, the mice) literally. Do you take the phrase, "Speak softly and carry a big stick," in such a literal way? I can imagine you asking: "Why does the United States carry a stick? Does that mean the Americans are cavemen? Why is Roosevelt a giant? Was Roosevelt a tall man? Did he like toy ships? Why is he pulling ships with his hand? Why does he speak softly? Does he have a sore throat?"

As you can see with the example, there is a difference between taking things too literally and taking them as the examples they truly represent. In the case of Keysanger, he (I assume WP:GF) seems to take, by mistake, things too literally and then expects me to answer his silly questions.

Also, on the matter regarding Argentina, I must have skipped over that. It has been quite a busy time. Additionally, I took out the peruheroico.com sources. After all of the whining and threats done I opted it was a better idea to simply remove the source. Likeminas helped by suggesting me to look at Google books.

I disagree with locking the article. It would practically mean everything would get stuck as it is with very minor changes to be made. That would be a sad end for the article.--//MarshalN20\\ (talk) 15:43, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Issues

Before this escalates into something bigger, let's cool down for a moment. I personally have no interest in getting personal with anyone here. I think we should just stick to the issues and avoid any confrontation at a personal level. I hope we can all agree, that in a more cordial environment it is way more enjoyable and efficient to contribute to the betterment of the article.

At the same time I'd like to stress the need for specific information regarding sources.

• Sources for off and online books need to include the page number of the relevant information: This is crucial because it serves two purposes; for one it is makes the job of verifying information a lot easier. The book ,for example, Influencia Britanica en el Salitre , with more than 670 pages is quite a long read to check for accuracy. Noting a page number is also considered good academic etiquette.

• There’s a lot of statement of opinion on several sections that might need re-writing to avoid weasel wording. I think it is also neccesary to identify the author of the statement as the holder of the opinion to avoid presenting that information as facts.

There might me more issues that need to be addressed, so please feel free to add them. And again, Let’s discuss content, not the editor.

Likeminas (talk) 15:05, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Likeminas. Everybody should take a second to cool down and think before they write. Unlike Keysanger seems to claim, we're not "opponents" here, we'res imply Wikipedians attempting to improve a Misplaced Pages article.--//MarshalN20\\ (talk) 15:48, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

WP:Avoid weasel words

"Some people say..." "Some argue..." "Contrary to many..." "Research has shown..." "...is claimed to be..." "...is thought to be..." "It is believed that..." "It is rumored that..." "Some feel that..." "Critics/experts say that..." "It is claimed..." "It has been reported that..." "It is generally considered that..." Anthropomorphisms like "Science says ..." or "Medicine believes ..."

That's a list of some of the weasel words.--//MarshalN20\\ (talk) 15:48, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Deletion of sourced material

Marshal, I don't know if you realize it but you deleted this sourced sentence, not once but twice, . I'm sure you're aware that deletion of sourced material without justification amounts to vandalism. I will, once again, restore the sentence. Likeminas (talk) 18:46, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

What does the return of books have to do with the War of the Pacific? I deleted it on purpose the first time I was updating the section; not sure how it got deleted the second time (you must have added it while I was still updating the section). Also, the reference serves for both that sentence and the prior one.--//MarshalN20\\ (talk) 18:52, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

It has a lot to do if the previous sentence talks about the books being looted.

And no. The BBC report talks only about books, nothing about capital stock.

Likeminas (talk)

I still don't think it does. This is supposed to be a section dealing with the history of the campaign, not about the current things Chile has done to fix some of its errors.--$%MarshalN20%$ (talk) 20:49, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

The section talks about some books, and the sentence that follows it discusses what happened to those books.

In any case, If we don't put it there, then under Aftermath: Chile could also fit well.

And please let's avoid value judgements. not really interested.

Likeminas (talk) 23:42, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Sounds like a better idea. Do you want to place it there, or should I (Regularly I wouldn't and shouldn't ask, but seeing as how sensitive the matter seems to be to you, then I find it best to ask)?--$%MarshalN20%$ (talk) 00:20, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

It's not that it is sensitive to me. As you can see, this discussion can get somewhat heated. Value judgtments don't help improving the article. In fact, in my experience, I see that they lead to unnecessary and escalated disputes instead.

I know it's hard sometimes not to give one's opinion, but being that Misplaced Pages is not a forum they're not really relevant here.

In any case, you or I can do the edit. No biggie...

Regarding this link http://books.google.com/books?id=QzUPAAAAYAAJ&sitesec=reviews&source=gbs_navlinks_s the one I tagged as broken, I get this on the title :span id="btAsinTitle"La emigración europea a la América Latina By Asociación de historiadores latinoamericanistas europeos, Bonn) Reunión de Historiadores Latinoamericanistas

anyone else getting the same? I see the title, but no eBook.

Likeminas (talk) 00:51, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

I get a book with a seldom title: span id="btAsinTitle"La emigración europea a la América Latina. There is no access to the text of the book. --Keysanger (talk) 20:00, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Have any of you attempted to use the search engine within the book?--$%MarshalN20%$ (talk) 20:58, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

That source -I'm afraid- was used in a rather deceptive manner. How can the statement, for which that source was used, be corroborated without accessing the relevant book page(s)?

Adding fraudulent sources is a worrying precedent, which I must say, does not do a lot in the realm of good faith.

Likeminas (talk) 15:47, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm afraid to say that you're incorrect. If you want to corroborate the information, you will have to buy the book. When books are used, there's no other option (Unless the book is on an internet format to be viewed). I have worked in Misplaced Pages articles that use book sources, and you can't access those books from the internet (Hence, you have to have the actual book copy to check the reference being made). Deletion of 34,000 bytes of sourced material (from books) is completely against Misplaced Pages rules.--$%MarshalN20%$ (talk) 16:59, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

That's interesting because you previously claimed it “opened perfectly” and that it “took only a few seconds” but when other users including myself tried to open it we got nothing but this span id="btAsinTitle"La emigración europea a la América Latina. Then you said you were “working” on fixing the link and when Keysanger got the same results as me, you advised us to “to use the search engine within the book” which implies that the book was accessible (at least by you).
Now you claim it is “library book”?
Then why then not say that from the very beginning?
Why fix a link that cannot be fixed?
And more intriguingly how are we supposed to use the search engine within a library book?
Likeminas (talk) 18:39, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Of course it opens perfectly. The first thing you said was that it was a dead link. However, both you and Keysanger opened the link (It's not dead). Nonetheless, both of you mentioned the awkward title, which is why I said I would try to fix it. I also recommended the usage of the search function within the book; it has a limited view of the content (You have to buy it to see the whole content). The information I saw, when I used the search function, found me the information I referenced for the article. Yet, since you still couldn't open it, I recommended the usage of a library book. You're obviously not assuming WP:GF and are taking a bit of a paranoia regarding my edits.--$%MarshalN20%$ (talk) 20:43, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

"Update" of Naval campaing is Peruvian POV

Peruvian POV Although in a condition of numerical inferiority, Miguel Grau, the commander of the Huáscar, managed to hold-off all of the Chilean navy for six months. Among the most outstanding actions of these "Excursions of the Huáscar" are the Battle of Antofagasta (May 26, 1879) and the Second Battle Antofagasta (August 28, 1879).

Not only does Grau capture the ship, but also captures the cavalry regiment Carabineros de Yungay which was on board.

besides being WP:POVthis edit deletes sourced, relevant information it breaks wikilinks, and blantly lacks any sources

This is not an improvement, and I'm reverting it to the previous version.

PS:Actually I won't be able to revert it because of times issues now, but that section needs to be worked out. Here's a good source for the naval campaign: http://books.google.com/books?id=mswNUZ4w0iwC&pg=PA132&dq=naval+war+chile+peru&ei=KWlmSsLNJJ6SygS80-mmBA starting on page 128 Likeminas (talk) 01:19, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Wow. How is it "Peruvian POV"? the Naval campaign section is much better than the broken-up strips of information that were not a summary of the naval conflict.--$%MarshalN20%$ (talk) 01:25, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Using qualifiers such as the most oustanding and not only did he do this is POV.

In any case it's not much better if it's not replaced with sourced content.

PI just tagged the article. I'll be back soon.

Likeminas (talk) 01:30, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, it's probably called "most outstanding" because that's the most outstanding thing that the Huascar did (the battles of Antofagasta). What else could one ship do? In reference to the sourced content, that's what I'm currently looking for. I was trying to resolve the problem with the alleged "dead link," but this other problem seems to be of more importance. I can't be everywhere at once, so you'll have to excuse the unattention I'll be giving the "dead link" thing you mention.--$%MarshalN20%$ (talk) 01:33, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

the sentence

The Battle of Angamos marks the end of the naval campaign of the War of the Pacific.

is contradictory with the next sentences:

However, the Peruvian navy would go on to achieve victories at the Naval Battle of Arica (February 27, 1880) and the Second Naval Battle of Arica (March 17, 1880), before finally being completely defeated during the Blockade of Callao, where the Peruvian fleet was set on fire and the coastal defenses of Callao were destroyed or taken to Chile.

There are of course other battles and uses of the navies after the battle of angamos. I request to delete or change first sentence (The Battle of Angamos marks the end …)

--Keysanger (talk) 11:36, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Deleted --Keysanger (talk) 13:45, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Again: references to "Great Britain"

The sentence During the War of the Pacific, Chile was backed morally and financially by the British Empire. is backed by two references:

1. http://www.hemisphericinstitute.org/eng/publications/emisferica/5.2/52_images/pdf/beckman_print.pdf
2. http://www.granvalparaiso.cl/v2/2009/03/21/los-ingleses-de-america/

Looking the second of them we can state that, apart from that the column is somthing like a blog without any academic label, the only sentence regarding some kind of backing is En ambos episodios como todos sabemos, los gobernantes chilenos han estado en una espuria complicidad con los británicos..

There is nothing to sustain the backed morally and financially.

Per reliable sourcing, the second link has been taken out. The Hemispheric Institute one seems to be quite clear.--$%MarshalN20%$ (talk) 15:27, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

dubious tag for During the Chilean invasion ... John Thomas North

The given reference ( http://www.elcorreo.eu.org/esp/article.php3?id_article=3426 ) is more or less a blog site and have to replaced by a reliable source, relativized or deleted.

--Keysanger (talk) 14:40, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

It's not a "blog site." Per its ending ".org", it's an organization. The source is reliable and should not be deleted. I'll look for a stronger source to back it up.--$%MarshalN20%$ (talk) 15:29, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

I also dispute that source as it shows no bibliography, the same thing that so vehemently was requested from Gonzalo Bulnes' book.

By the way, domains are up for sale rather cheaply these days, including those ending in .org

So endings are indication of nothing, much less of reliability.

Likeminas (talk) 15:37, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Lackawamma Conference

The lackawamma conference doesn't belong to the Land Campaign. I reinserted it into the main article.

--Keysanger (talk) 14:40, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

The Lackawama is part of the land campaign as one of the peace events during the war. If you want to include information on it, please do so by adding an elaborate sentence (or two) regarding the matter within the Land Campaign summary.--$%MarshalN20%$ (talk) 06:19, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

The Lackawamma Conference is part of the Land Campaign?.

Which is the name of the battle? Lackawamma battle?

The Conference belongs absolutly to the main article.

--Keysanger (talk) 10:27, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Can you explain why the Lackawama is so "important"?--$%MarshalN20%$ (talk) 13:48, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Why do you put the LC in the Land Campaign? Do you see a batle there? --Keysanger (talk) 20:06, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

It's part of the land campaign. We're not making a list of battles, we're doing a summary of the most important events of the Land Campaign. The Lackawama Conference is not important enough to hold its own section: The negotiations were a failure (It didn't resolve the war, therefore it's not important for a section of its own). However, it is important in the sense of it being "a part of" the wide view of the events. In the summary given to it, a paragraph on its own, all the important points of the conference are covered.--$%MarshalN20%$ (talk) 20:51, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Summarizing (Some people need to learn...)

Once the article gets into a position where it exceeds the capacity of 82 KB, it becomes completely obvious that a summary of the events is necessary in certain sections of the article. Please read Misplaced Pages:Article size. I know that some of you would like to include even the name of the grandmothers of the participants in the war, but sadly, certain specific things need to slowly be put into a separate article.

For example, the section Land campaign and invasion already holds its own article. If you wish to expand on that, go to its own article and expand the information there. As for the article, it should only hold a summary of the events. User:Keysanger (I have to single him out) has turned this section into a Misplaced Pages:Content forking. If this user wants to include things such as the "Lackawana Conference" in the article, it should be done in one elaborated sentence that goes straight to the point. Per Misplaced Pages:Article size, I will revert the information back to the summary-style that used to be in place.

And no, Keysanger, it's not that I have anything against you or that you're an "opponent." There are some basic Wiki rules that have to be followed. If you want to see this article promoted to "GA Status," the page has to be at about 82 KB. There are only very few and rare exceptions that Misplaced Pages allows for more, but this article does not need it.--MarshalN20.14:57, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Prado- Pierola: 300 deads

Hi Marshal,

You deleted a lot of information about the circumtances of Prado's trip to Panamathe and Putsch Pierola against Prado. All this information was referenced and it is uncontested. Remember that to delete referenced information can be considered vandalism. Would you be so kind to rewrite this important data to the main article.

--Keysanger (talk) 10:37, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

First, what is "Prado's trip to Panamathe and Putsch Pierola against Prado." Please write more clearly.

Second, like I mentioned above, I know you probably would even like to include the name of Prado's great-grandfather, but according to the WP:Summary style only truly relevant information to the overall topic is necessary to be included. If you want to include information regarding this thing you mention, you should ask yourself first if it is truly important to mention (Why is it relevant?), and then includ the information in as much of a short form as possible (Summarize in one or two elaborate sentences).

Remember to summarize!--$%MarshalN20%$ (talk) 13:37, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

To your information Prado was the president of Peru at the begining of the war.

Pierola was the President of Peru at the Batle of Chorrillos.

Do you know how get pierola president?

--Keysanger (talk) 20:08, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

If you think it's relevant for the article, then go ahead and look for it and put it in there. Like I said before, there are other articles related to the War of the Pacific that have been created for the purpose of expanding the information. However, if you add it on the main War of the Pacific article, please try to summarize the event to the most relevant point possible.--$%MarshalN20%$ (talk) 20:54, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Role of Argentina and Britain equal??

Besides, the ships (which Peru also got from Britain) and money (which Peru got from France) how does British role equal that of Argentina?

Did the British parlament also sign into a secret alliance with Chile?

The section violates POV content fork and undue weight. Likeminas (talk) 15:56, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

You're acting like you WP:Own the article. You should be ashamed of your actions Likeminas. WP:BOLD does not encourage deletion of 34,000 bytes of sourced material.--$%MarshalN20%$ (talk) 16:52, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Once again, discuss content not the user.

Likeminas (talk) 16:55, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

The destruction of sourced material reminds me of the Chilean occupation of Lima. And it's the 28 of July, how ironic.--$%MarshalN20%$ (talk) 17:05, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

That's very sad, indeed. Let's all take a minute of silence in memory of the fallen.

Likeminas (talk) 18:53, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Restoring to less contentious version

I restored to the older version of this article. The changes recently made to the article, with the inclusion of fraudulent sources is much more contentious than it previously was. The new version loaded with POV edits heavily done by a single user is not an improvement.
I would like to improve this article, as I assume all of you want. But to do that, we nee to have a rational and dispassionate discussion that focuses on content rather than the user. That’s why I propose we discuss any major changes before they’re implemented in the article.
This approach will allow us to raise questions of relevance, due weight and sources before they’re inserted in the article, which in turn, will reduce the chances of that content being challenged in the future. I invite all contributors of this article to go an read the Spanish version as it serves a good example of a dispassionate and rather neutral looking article. http://es.wikipedia.org/Guerra_del_Pac%C3%ADfico

Likeminas (talk) 16:24, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

You have made a major deletion of sourced material, around 34,000 bytes. You should truly be ashamed of yourself Likeminas.--$%MarshalN20%$ (talk) 16:50, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

I have to remind Marshall to discuss content rather than the user. There's a rationale behind the revert. I will elaborate even more, if need be.

Likeminas (talk) 16:53, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

No explanation you give will support the deletion of 34,000 bytes of sourced material.--$%MarshalN20%$ (talk) 16:55, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

POV loaded edits, use of fraudulent sources and content forking all done by a single user are strong support.

Likeminas (talk) 16:58, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

You cannot prove my edits were "POV loaded" (Because they weren't), and you can't argue "fraudulent sources" or "content forking." All of those are simple accusations from your part. Unproven accusations do not justify the deletion of 34,000 bytes of sourced material.--$%MarshalN20%$ (talk) 17:01, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

I find it equally ironic to see you mention the Spanish version of this article, when that is exactly what was used to translate text into the sections of the article. Your edits should be ashamed of themselves.--$%MarshalN20%$ (talk) 17:09, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

I support plenty Likeminas's doing. The article was awkfully biased in wording, theme selection, weight of the facts, seriousness of sources, etc.

Our failed attempts to improve the article will remain in the repository of wikipedia and can be recovered if we get a consensus about the use. But unfortunately most of them are not appropriate to build a consensus.

I am open minded for any proposal. Let's improve the article within the rules of wikipedia.

--Keysanger (talk) 17:11, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

The two of you can claim as many things as you want, but the deletion of 34,000 bytes of sourced material is not justified by any of your opinions. On the same note, I respected the decision of Likeminas to keep Argentina in the "Crisis" section, and I also respected the information Likeminas added in the now-deleted section on "World Views" (which, Keysanger, you agreed in its creation). However, Likeminas's edits did not show respect for the prior addition of source material and my contributions. Nonetheless, the main issue here is that 34,000 bytes of sourced material were deleted, and no Misplaced Pages administrator is going to buy your opinion that they were POV without any actual proof other than your opinion.--$%MarshalN20%$ (talk) 17:28, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Marshal, it doesn't make sense to discuss about the old biased article. It was imposible to reach consensus on this base. I agreed to the creation, but not to this monstrosity (importance of Argentina= importance Great Britain), to mention only one of the failures of the old article.

I propose:

1) to elaborate a "table of contents" based in recognized books about the War of the Pacific. I find "Andean Tragedy" of (?) a possible choice. I think that is easy because all good authors agree on the main themes.

2) to make a rough estimate of the lenght for every theme

3) to write and cite from well known authors, with page number and a short passage of the relevant text to avoid misunderstandings and to give the interested reader a glance of the authors view. No more blogs, or 800 pages books without the position of the support sentence, no more contested websites.

4) I think for daring thesis we can let a "Analisys" chapter at the end of the article, but announcing to the reader that it is thesis.

5) but first and foremost we have to keep cool. No personal attacks. No You are ... but your proposal is ....

I am sure we can get it.

--Keysanger (talk) 17:52, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

I support that proposal. However, in the coming days, I won't be having much free time to contribute, but once I get a chance I will definitely be helping out.

Likeminas (talk) 19:16, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Further corroboration of POV edits:

• “Summarizing” of U.S. role blatantly deletes sentence The United States tried to bring an early end to the war, mainly because of American financial interests in Peru, while it leaves Blaine’s sentence of It is a complete mistake to see this as a Chilean war against Peru. it is a British war against Peru using Chile as its instrument In addition to deleting Blaine's personal involment in Peru's Guano.

Blaine was denounced at home as a bellicose meddler and corrupt practitioner of “guano diplomacy”, who sought to make a financial killing by supporting the specious claims of unscrupulous entrepreneurs and hustler to guano deposits in Peru. Charges for which he was later investigated

• Usage of a single (Peruvian Historian) source, not readily accessible

while claiming that Chilean history sources are biased.

.

• Usage of ultra-nationalistic (thus unreliable) websites to back up POV-loaded edits.

• Creation of undue weight section called Role of Britain:

• Suspected usage of fraudulent sources to back-up POV-loaded edits

.

The list goes on but those are few of the proven accusations and the main reason of why the last version of the article was highly POV and needed to be discussed.

Likeminas (talk) 18:04, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Please stop this inauspiciousness discussion. That will get you nowhere but further and further discussions, diffs more diffs and wasted time.

--Keysanger (talk) 19:50, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Sure, I just wanted to list a few POV edits in order to show why restoration of an older version is warranted.

Likeminas (talk) 19:55, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Those are your opinions. You deleted 34,000 bytes of sourced material, and you'll have to explain yourself to high authorities if you continue with such nonsense.--$%MarshalN20%$ (talk) 20:07, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

That's exactly why I wanted to gather a few of your edits, dear Marshall, so that it cannot be claimed it is my opinion. It's all right there on the links I provided.

High authorities would be welcomed here, as perhaps, your POV pushing might need to do some explaining. Can we get back to improving the article now?

Likeminas (talk) 20:17, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

You keep making personal attacks against me by constantly accusing me of POV pushing. Also, as I mentioned earlier, your unproven opinions are by no means a reason to delete 34,000 bytes of sourced material.--$%MarshalN20%$ (talk) 20:38, 28 July 2009(UTC)

Pointing out your highly POV edits is not a personal attack but proof beyond reasonable doubt of your biased editing.

In any case, I have no intention nor the time of engaging in a futile back and forth with you.

In the meantime I will tag the undue section you have recently created. Needless is to say, that I expect you not to remove it until is properly discussed here, else, you will be simply reported to an administrator.

Likeminas (talk) 22:05, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Likeminas, you can tag as many things as you want. I really don't care if you even were to tag my pets (nor if they were to attack you). The whole point of this is that you should not be deleting sourced material because you think that it's wrong. Once more, your "proof" of my "biased editing" is nothing. You're simply threatening me. If you actually had "proof" of me doing something wrong, I know for a fact that you would have already sent in the "evidence" to an administrator.--$%MarshalN20%$ (talk) 00:49, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Discuss topic by topic

I see that there is ongoing dispute between Likeminas and MarshalN20.. Can you just bring up the level the discussion? I propose you both to discuss all disputed paragraphs here one by one as compact as possible. Its very difficult ofr an outsider to catch up the dispute. I propose that the sentences and paragraphs that are agreed here to be poorly sourced should be left in the article for 1 month (with a tag) and be remover afterward if they are still badly sourced.

contested issues in War of the Pacific version

Issue nr	Text	Problem	Status	Petitioner
1	Cáceres's troops faced against the better equipped and armed Chilean troops with the usage of archaic weaponry such as machetes, spears, clubs, stones, and few old muskets.	Ultra-nationalistic source	Y resolved	Dentren	29.07.2009
2	After a taxation controversy in a territory disputed by Chile and Bolivia, the crisis worsened following the Chilean invasion of Bolivian territory and the discovery of a secret defensive alliance between Bolivia and Peru	Weasel words	Y resolved	Keysanger	29.07.2009
3	The conclusion of the conflict ultimately led to the Chilean annexation of the Peruvian Tarapaca department and Arica province, as well as the Bolivian department of Litoral, leaving Bolivia as a landlocked country.	annexation is not the word used in the Treaty of Ancon(http://es.wikisource.org/Tratado_de_Ancón): Artículo 2º: La República del Perú cede a la Republica de Chile, perpetua e incondicionalmente, …	Y resolved	Keysanger	29.07.2009
4	treaty of defensive alliance	on going discussion	open	Keysanger	29.07.2009
5	Chile was not directly mentioned in the text of the treaty, but was not informed about its existence, which leads Chilean historians to believe that the treaty was in reality aimed against Chile	Weasel words: Chile was not directly mentioned is presented as fact, what is true, but Chileans are presented as blind, they dont understand.	open	Keysanger	29.07.2009
6	Chile was not directly mentioned in the text of the treaty, but was not informed about its existence, which leads Chilean historians to believe that the treaty was in reality aimed against Chile	Do not considerer the interpretation of the secret by the Chilean Government at that time, not only the chilean historians.	open	Keysanger	29.07.2009
7	Heavy British capital investment drove development through the area, and most of the exploitation of the coastal region of Atacama was conducted by Chilean companies and British investments	Sentence is POV (British drove Chileans) and lacks reliable reference	open	Keysanger	29.07.2009
8	Role of Argentina	No need for it to be part of "crisis." Argentina did not join the alliance and did not do anything more outstanding than Great Britain, Brazil, France, the United States and all the other nations in the "World Perspectives" section (where they all should go).	open	Marshal	29.07.2009
9	and told him that it was not offensive to Chile.	POV: Why is there this statement and no Chilean statements about the agressiveness of the treaty?	open	Keysanger	29.07.2009
10	Role of Great Britain	simply pushed too hard: GB did not declared the war to Peru, did not sell weapons to CH or PE or BO during the war Unbalanced POV + Undue weight under Crisis section	open	Keysanger	29.07.2009
11	The climax of the excursions was the capture of the steamship Rímac	What is means with Climax: In general, a climax (from the Greek word “κλῖμαξ” (klimax) meaning “staircase” and “ladder”) is a point of greatest intensity or force in an ascending series; i.e., a culmination. The term "climax" has many specific connotations and uses in English: Climax (narrative) Climax (figure of speech) Climax community Climax vegetation in an ecosystem	open	Keysanger	29.07.2009
12	Once the naval superiority was achieved, the troops of the Chilean army initiated a series of military maneuvers in the Peruvian provinces	according with http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/maneuvers maneuvers doesn't fit to the events: tausend of people dead or injured, Peru and Bolivia lost their main income source. Are that maneuvers	open	Keysanger	29.07.2009
13	Once the naval superiority was achieved, the troops of the Chilean army initiated a series of military maneuvers in the Peruvian provinces of Tarapacá, Tacna, and Arica. The battles of Pisagua, Tacna, and Arica, resulted in Chilean victories that gave Chile control over the Atacama desert. Although the Battle of Tarapacá was an allied victory, it did not change the course of the events in favor of the allies because Bolivia retired from war after the Battle of Tacna, and Peru was left alone to face against Chile.	That is all about the Land Campaign in the main article. compare with the Role of Great Britain	open	Keysanger	29.07.2009
14	The Lynch expedition, the Lackawamma conference, The putsch Pierola against Prado, etc, etc , until the ending of the war, all that is only under one title: Land Campaign	The reader needs some clues to better understanding of the matter. The article needs more titles and subtitles. I added that but they were deleted by Marshal	open	Keysanger	29.07.2009
15	Peru's Tarapacá province was ceded to the victor and Bolivia was forced to cede Antofagasta.	POV: was forced	open	Keysanger	29.07.2009
16	uprising forced the puppet regime	POV: puppet	open	Keysanger	29.07.2009
17	Peru took the initiative and utilized its smaller but effective navy	POV: effective	open	Keysanger	29.07.2009
18	When retreating, Allied forces made sure that little if any assets remained to be used by the enemy	POV Non-sense, facts	open	Keysanger	29.07.2009
19	Massive raidings from demoralized Peruvian soldiers and invading Chilean forces destroyed several Peruvian towns and cities across the coastline.	Facts?	open	Keysanger	29.07.2009
20	The history of the Peruvian Politics (Prado-Pierola-Calderon-Caceres-Montero) was partially deleted by Marshal	must be there	open	Keysanger	29.07.2009
21	Summarized US Role vs. Non-Summarized	Likeminas keeps reverting the summarized version to the long one.	open	Marshal	29.07.2009
22	Role of the United States	Summarized version of events is better for the article, just as with all of the other sections being summarized. Some users want to keep it long because of their childish rants and attempts to push their POV.	open	Marshall	29.07.2009
23
24	Usage of Ultra Nationalistic Websites	Heroic Peru (www.peruheroic.com), with our Peru (www.connuestroperu.com)	Yresolved	Likeminas	29.07.2009
25	Use of excerpts from Google books	Very likely to be used out of context if only a few sentences are can be read	open	Likeminas	29.07.2009
26	In South America, the War of the Pacific was not well-received.	facts?	open	Keysanger	29.07.2009
27	Italian immigrants in Peru complained about the murder and plunder of their property by Chilean troops to the Italian government which eventually sent three warships to help protect its citizens. Italy's greatest contribution to the war would be through its immigrants, who would serve as medics and firemen in Peru, but a great rift took place between the Chilean and Italian governments when 11 Italian firemen, who were attempting to put out fires and help wounded Peruvian soldiers, were killed by Chilean troops after the Battle of Chorrillos. Italian immigrants in Chile would face further hostility after the Chilean army reported that as many as 700 Italians had fought alongside Peruvians in the Battle of San Juan and Miraflores, which was a claim that was, according to Peruvian historian Jorge Basadre, false and, according Italian historian Tomas Caivano, a cover-up for the murder of Italians by Chilean troops.	Biased text because it doesn't mention all the data given in the book page 103	open	Keysanger	29.07.2009
28	However, the real issue is the fear of being dependent on Chile or Peru.		open	Keysanger	29.07.2009
29	Aftermath: Chile	1)Victory was, however, a mixed blessing. (Opinion and unsourced) 2)British involvement and control of the nitrate industry rose significantly after the war, leading them to meddle in Chilean politics and ultimately to back an overthrow of Chilean President José Manuel Balmaceda in 1891(needs to be verified by more reliable sources) 3)Economic data regarding the slowing the country's industrial development, the British companies left the country, leaving a large number of unemployment behind and Chilean popular belief sees this as a territorial loss of almost half a million square miles (need to be verified by reliable sources or removed.)	open	Likeminas	29.07.2009
30	Appropiate weight and promince in the roles of Argentina, Britain and the U.S.	Were the goverments of Arg. GB and the US directly involved in negotiations with each of the combatant nations? What were the ineterests of these nations? What aid that these countries gave can be corroborated via reliable sources? What was their declared and official stance on the war and what was their tacit one?	open	Likeminas	29.07.2009
31	At the exchange of these economic gains, Chile faced a series of social problems. According to Erika Beckman, Professor of Latin American studies at the University of Chicago, Chilean state actors justified the war with racist rhetoric. Chilean historian Diego Barros Arana argues that the Chilean elite saw itself as "the British of South America," while viewing its northern neighbors (Bolivia and Peru) as people of inferior races.	The current version deals with Chilean racism but it lacks any mention of the racism within the Peruvian society	open	Keysanger	30 July 2009
32	Clements Markham	Clements Markham must be auted as a Peru-biased author. reference: W.F. Sater, "Andean Tragedy", University of Nebraska Press, 2007, page 91: The admittedly Pro-Peruvian Clemens Markman …	open	Keysanger	30 July 2009
33	Map of the war	Puna de Atacama is incorrectly depicted in the map in the current map.	open	MarshalN20
34	In 1874, Chile and Bolivia superseded the boundary treaty signed in 1866 with a new boundary treaty granting Bolivia the authority to collect full tax revenue between the 23rd and 24th parallels, fixing the tax rates on Chilean companies for 25 years and calling for Bolivia to open up.	Elaborate on "Open Up" (What exactly does it mean?)	open	MarshalN20
35

Issue nr 1

This page, , is used to source issue nr 1. This site is not reliable since it is ultra-nationalistic, perhaps etno-cacerista. The site describes the war as a war of robbery and pillage (rapiña), the occupation of Peru as unhonorable and shameful (ignominioso) and says that the a Chilean extermination and destruction in Lima is proper of war criminals and is a preamble to the Nazi practises in Europe. However the claim about the weapons used by Caceres troops may be true, and should be investigated, and sourced trough proper sources. Dentren | 07:56, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Peruheroico's reliableness is still under consideration of the WP's Reliable Source network; no solution has been finalized on the topic. However, it should not be a problem to find the information from a simple book search.--$%MarshalN20%$ (talk) 14:29, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Okay. Issue solved.--$%MarshalN20%$ (talk) 14:53, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

I dont like to remove material or to do thing unilaterally but i think that if no source is found within a month, it means on 29 August then this sentences should be removed. Dentren | 17:26, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't agree with that reasoning. Seeing as how slow the discussion is going, all of the problems won't be able to be discussed by the 29th of August. My proposal is: Once an issue begins to be discussed (sub-section is created), it has 31 (or 30) days to be resolved; otherwise it gets deleted or falls into a Wiki-dispute thing.--$%MarshalN20%$ (talk) 17:39, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Issue Nr 2

The word worsened aplied to the Chilean response to the Bolivian facts is POV --Keysanger (talk) 13:11, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Sometimes I get the feeling that you're not very good at the English language. In order to clear my doubts, would you care to explain how it is POV? I can just as easily say: Pinochet is a funny man. Yet, if I give no explanation on how he is funny, it's just a pointless statement.--$%MarshalN20%$ (talk) 14:32, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

No personal attacks. --Keysanger (talk) 16:48, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

If it doesn't matter, then I will change the order of the adjetives. --Keysanger (talk) 16:48, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Do you not understand English? You have to explain why you think it's POV, otherwise your argument holds no foundation.--$%MarshalN20%$ (talk) 17:02, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

How is it resolved? You:

1. Haven't explained how the original statement is POV.
2. Claim the matter is resolved when you have given no explanation to your claims.
3. Lie in the edit summary by claiming your edit comes from the solution of "Issue Nr. 2"
4. Distort the sentence, which reads in full context: "After a taxation controversy in a territory disputed by Chile and Bolivia, the crisis worsened following the Chilean invasion of Bolivian territory and the discovery of a secret defensive alliance between Bolivia and Peru."

In other words, the usage of the word "worsened" goes both to the Chilean invasion of Bolivian territory and the discovery of the secret defensive alliance between Bolivia and Peru. Which makes me repeat the question, how is it POV?--$%MarshalN20%$ (talk) 16:59, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Why not to the Bolivian breach of agreement ? --Keysanger (talk) 17:15, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

The Bolivian breach of the agreement is what started the crisis! That's why I keep asking you if you understand English. The whole paragraph is made in effective English grammar that is by no means POV. It's all so simple: Bolivia's breach of the agreement started the crisis, and the Chilean invasion of Antofagasta and the discovery of the secret defensive alliance made it worse. Why is it POV?--$%MarshalN20%$ (talk) 17:35, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

After a taxation controversy in a territory disputed by Chile and Bolivia, the crisis was followed by a Chilean invasion of Bolivian territory and the discovery of a secret defensive alliance between Bolivia and Peru Has anybody problems with this version of the text? Dentren | 17:23, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I have a problem with it. It's not explaining that the crisis got worse after those things happened. Why is the original statement POV? That's all I'm asking. Why is it POV?--$%MarshalN20%$ (talk) 17:35, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

If you are going to argue something, please present an explanation for your argument. It's annoying to have to argue something that does not even have a foundation.--$%MarshalN20%$ (talk) 17:36, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

It is POV because assign to Chile the blame of the "the situation worsened". I agree Dentren's proposal. --Keysanger (talk) 17:41, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

That is your foundation? Read the whole sentence again: "After a taxation controversy in a territory disputed by Chile and Bolivia, the crisis worsened following the Chilean invasion of Bolivian territory and the discovery of a secret defensive alliance between Bolivia and Peru." That is not giving Chile the blame of "the situation worsened." If you understood what you read, then you would clearly see that the "worsened" part is going for both the invasion of Antofagasta and the discovery of the secret treaty. If you don't understand English, please consult with people who do know the language before attempting to make illogical claims.--$%MarshalN20%$ (talk) 17:47, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, you are right. you would clearly see that the "worsened" part is going for both the invasion of Antofagasta and the discovery of the secret treaty. The first part (invasion of Antofagasta) blames Chile.

Next personal attack and I will think it’s necessary that an administrator intervenes. --Keysanger (talk) 17:52, 29 July 2009 (UTC) I hope Marshal has understand now what is wrong. We use Dentren's proposal as consensus:

After a taxation controversy in a territory disputed by Chile and Bolivia, the crisis was followed by a Chilean invasion of Bolivian territory and the discovery of a secret defensive alliance between Bolivia and Peru

--Keysanger (talk) 17:56, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Go right ahead; do as you wish, contact an administrator so that they may see the illogical argument you are creating. The "worsened" part is refering to the discovery of the defensive alliance and the invasion of Bolivia. It's not POV, and it's in perfect English grammar. I seriously can't believe what I'm reading from you.--$%MarshalN20%$ (talk) 17:57, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

No. Dentren's proposal is NOT of consensus. A one person claim of "consensus" is by no means actual consensus; especially if the person in question fails to understand the meaning of a simple sentence.--$%MarshalN20%$ (talk) 18:01, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

I also agree with Dentren's proposal, which makes it a virtual consensus (which may I add needs not be unanimous), now if another user disputes this temporary consensus of the majority, he should give strong arguments against its implementation. Otherwise, that use might be trying to push his POV and make a point.

I also think an administrator attention might be needed at this point, Marshall's personal attacks are just getting out of control.

Likeminas (talk) 18:07, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

MArshal I understand your point of view, but tell me whats wrong with the other version? I made it not because I believed that "worsened" was a totally flawed, but to avoid "qualifiers".Dentren | 18:16, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you Dentren for understanding my position, may the Lord bless you with a week of joy (or, if you don't believe in that, then I wish you my best regards). Let me explain (with two simple points) why I think your proposal is not an improvement:

• This is what you wrote: "After a taxation controversy in a territory disputed by Chile and Bolivia, the crisis was followed by a Chilean invasion of Bolivian territory and the discovery of a secret defensive alliance between Bolivia and Peru."

1. The word "After" (at the sentence's beginning) and the statement "was followed by a" (which is what you proposed) both make themselves redundant.
2. The "crisis" was not "followed by" the secret alliance treaty and the Chilean invasion of Antofagasta. Both of those things are part of the crisis.

All I see from Keysanger's opinion is that he does not want the Chilean invasion of Antofagasta to be seen as making the matter worse. How can it not make the matter worse? It would be like saying that Germany's invasion of the Czech zone of Czechoslovakia did not make the crisis prior to WW II worse. It's illogical. Moreover, the "worse" part is mentioning both the discovery of the secret defensive alliance (which is Peru and Bolivia's creation) and the invasion of Antofagasta. In other words, no single country is being aimed. Do you understand?--$%MarshalN20%$ (talk) 18:29, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

what if replace "crisis worsened" with "relations worsened"? Dentren | 18:35, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Not a satisfactory objection by Marshall. Logic tells us that in a sequence of events, one event must be followed and preceded by another. In addition, usage of qualifiers (weasel wording) such as “worsened” is discouraged by Misplaced Pages’s rule. Likeminas (talk) 18:40, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Worsened is not a weasel word. Likeminas, if you're not going to be part of the solution, please don't be a part of the problem.--$%MarshalN20%$ (talk) 18:50, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

In response to Dentren, whom it seems has been sent by a superior entity to help improve the article. "Relations worsened" sounds good to me, but it still does not have the correct explanation on the matter. "Relations worsened" is true, don't get me wrong, and I agree with it (and the sources, and history, agree with it). However, like I mentioned in my other response, this situation is still part of the crisis. I have not meant anything against Chile with "the crisis worsened," nor have I meant anything against Bolivia and Peru with "the crisis worsened." It's not POV. The crisis did worsen after the discovery of the secret defensive alliance and the invasion of Antofagasta. I still don't understand why it's wrong? Why? Why is it POV? Why? I'm trying to be as fair as possible, but nobody has been able to truly explain "Why?"--$%MarshalN20%$ (talk) 18:50, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

So I think that is enough. Marshal agree that the sentence blames Chile: "he does not want the Chilean invasion of Antofagasta to be seen as making the matter worse". That is right. I don't want that, not for Chile, not for Peru and not for Bolivia. Misplaced Pages Neutrality.

I replaced the sentence with Dentren's first proposal. --Keysanger (talk) 18:59, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

I propose the following;

After a taxation controversy in a territory disputed by Chile and Bolivia, the crisis was deepened after the Chilean occupation of Bolivian territory and the discovery of a secret defensive alliance between Bolivia and Peru

The word Invasion might also be POV as the population of Antofagasta was 95% Chilean at the time and its habitans did not see it as an invasion. I believe occupation is more accurate.

Likeminas (talk) 19:02, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Likeminas's proposal is perfect. Thank you Likeminas. And yes, your wording does sound more neutral. See? I'm not attempting to fight with the lot of you. If you use reasonable solutions to a reasonable discussion, then all things will be easily fixed. On the other hand, if you use illogical ideas of "Misplaced Pages neutrality" (when you apparently don't even understand the English language), problems will not be fixed but rather they will be "deepened" (Using Likemina's more "neutral" wording for "worsened").--$%MarshalN20%$ (talk) 19:04, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

I think invaded is better than occupysince occupy contradicts Chilean views of re-asserting Chilean sovereignty that had been passed over to Bolivian from 1866 to 1879. Following this view a country does not "occupy" a piece of land that is rightfully hers. Apart from this I agree with likeminas proposal.Dentren | 19:18, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm fine with either "Occupy" or "Invaded." However, based on Dentren's explanation, "Invaded" does sound like the better term.--$%MarshalN20%$ (talk) 19:22, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Is this issue resolved?--$%MarshalN20%$ (talk) 20:17, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Issue nr 3

I see two possible ways of saying it: Peru ceded or Chile annexed. Ceded is the wording of the treaty, but wikipedia does not need to follow it exactly, annexed on the other side is correct to. IIs this relevant? Ask any Chilean historian, Chile annexed Tarapaca, and ask any Peruvian historian the Peruvian government (in Lima?) had to cedeDentren | 18:36, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

I believe "ceded" is correct. I remember when we were discussing the issue of Bolivia declaring war on Chile, Arafael and Marshall argued that omission of a explicit war declaration on the decree against Chilean property supported the position that Bolivia had not officially declared war on Chile.

Well, now we have an official document explicitly calling it "ceded", which leaves no room for ambiguity or interpretations. In addition, the original document trumps any other possible source that might arise claiming otherwise.

Likeminas (talk) 18:51, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Peru ceded Tarapaca, and Bolivia ceded its Litoral department; as a result of the war. However, the problem is that Arica was not ceded by Peru. Arica was to stay under Chilean control for some time until some plebiscite was held (Tacna and Tarata were also under Chilean control; Peru didn't cede those two provinces either); but Chile and Peru never found agreeable terms on the matter. A treaty sponsored by the US, eventually led to a compromise that made Peru keep Tacna and Chile keep Arica. More proof that Peru didn't cede Arica was that Chile gave Peru a port in Arica as part of the compromise between both nations. HOWEVER, Chile did annex Tarapaca, Antofagasta (Litoral), and Arica. Do you understand what I mean (I'm sure you, Dentren, do, but I ask mainly for the others)?--$%MarshalN20%$ (talk) 18:57, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Peru ceded Tarapaca, and Bolivia ceded its Litoral department; as a result of the war That is right. How would you denominate the Arica handing over?. Please sumarize, --Keysanger (talk) 19:03, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Well the use of the word of annexation is not wrong either, and we should be careful to not rely blindly on official documents since they can sometimes use the language of the victor. As I understand it annextion usually connotes the acquisition of territory that were formerly under another states possession, and can implies some coercion, expansionism or unilateralism. In the article Mexican-American War the word annexation is used. Why not here? I dont know anybody here that believed that the adquisition of Tarapaca was "just and fair", it was new land that had never before been in touch with Chile. Using annexation for the Bolivian Litoral is different.. Chile had a set of arguments to legitimize it as Chilean since colonial times. Since the sentence is refering to both territories I have to agree that ceded would be more adequate.

Arica was first occupied by Chile but then ultimately ceded by Peru.Dentren | 19:08, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Marshall accepted Cession. Resolved --Keysanger (talk) 19:17, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

How did I "accept" cession? Can you explain that to me Keysanger? Here's the more neutral proposal on how both things can be mixed:

• The conclusion of the conflict ultimately led to the Chilean annexation of the ceded Peruvian territories of Tarapaca and Arica, as well as the ceded Bolivian department of Litoral, leaving Bolivia as a landlocked country.

How's that for consensus?--$%MarshalN20%$ (talk) 19:20, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

The description is correct but it is idiomatically, let us say, not so beautiful. "annexation of the ceded" is correct but ugly, can we not change that to "acquisition" or something else? Dentren | 19:43, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Sure. I'm in favor of making the article look "pretty." Can you make a full sentence of what you propose?--$%MarshalN20%$ (talk) 19:48, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

You wrote:

Well the use of the word of annexation is not wrong either, and we should be careful to not rely blindly on official documents since they can sometimes use the language of the victor. As I understand it annextion usually connotes the acquisition of territory that were formerly under another states possession, and can implies some coercion, expansionism or unilateralism. In the article Mexican-American War the word annexation is used. Why not here? I dont know anybody here that believed that the adquisition of Tarapaca was "just and fair", it was new land that had never before been in touch with Chile. Using annexation for the Bolivian Litoral is different.. Chile had a set of arguments to legitimize it as Chilean since colonial times. Since the sentence is refering to both territories I have to agree that ceded would be more adequate.

--Keysanger (talk) 19:45, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Dentren wrote all of that....*sighs*--$%MarshalN20%$ (talk) 19:48, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

I disagree. --Keysanger (talk) 19:50, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

The use of "annexation" is acceptable for Tarapaca and arica but does not fit in Litoral. If we are refering to both in one sweep, then acquisition or ceded are good terms. Dentren | 19:52, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

• The conclusion of the conflict ultimately led to the Chilean acquisition of the Peruvian territories of Tarapaca and Arica, as well as the disputed Bolivian department of Litoral, leaving Bolivia as a landlocked country. Who like this version?Dentren | 19:57, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

It seems fine.

Likeminas (talk) 19:59, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

It sounds good to me. Not much of a change from the other one, but if the simple change of one word for another makes the rest of you happy, go for it.--$%MarshalN20%$ (talk) 20:02, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Is this issue resolved?--$%MarshalN20%$ (talk) 20:24, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

From my part, yes. Dentren | 05:52, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Issue Nr.5 & Issue Nr.6

Can anybody explain to me what the problem is in "Issue N. 5"? I've tried reading it a couple of times, but I don't understand the problem.--$%MarshalN20%$ (talk) 01:26, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

was not directly can be changed to was not. Dentren | 05:51, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Sure. I suppose that's an improvement to the sentence. I still don't see what's wrong with the other one, but I'll go with what Dentren's currently proposing if that will appease everyone.--$%MarshalN20%$ (talk) 06:38, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

The text is:

Chile was not directly mentioned in the text of the treaty, but was not informed about its existence, which leads Chilean historians to believe that the treaty was in reality aimed against Chile

1) There is a unlogical but joining two sentences:

Chile was not directly mentioned in the text of the treaty, but was not informed about its existence

It doesn't make sense to say " … but … " because the second sentence (was not informed about its existence) doesn't contradict or correct the first sentence (Chile was not directly mentioned in the text of the treaty). In this case you could say " … and … ".

2) Misplaced Pages's duty Misplaced Pages:Five pillars is not to explain the history ( or what lead the Chileans/Peruvian/Bolivians historians). Misplaced Pages's duty is to expone the facts and the knowledge of the historians about it, and that, with reliable sources and not original research. The word "lead" is out of place because it tries to explain the history.

3) Not only Chilean historians believe that the treaty was in reality aimed against Chile. Also Italian, French, US-American historian and the Chilean Government believe that the treaty was a menace for Chile. See the Cabal mediation about the theme defensive/offensive led by Gigs in this page.

4) Furthermore, the "leads" take the defensive character of the treaty for granted.

I propose:

Chile was not directly mentioned in the text of the treaty and was not informed about its existence, unlike Argentina. As the treaty was published in Peru few days before the declaration of war, the Chilean Government considered it as offensive and was one of the reasons given to declare the war(ref)See 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 here, page 170:

…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…(/ref)

I am sure, it can be improved.

--Keysanger (talk) 11:15, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Keysanger, I really I'm not trying to "personally attack" you, but your English grammar is horrible. I truly am quite the "Grammar Nazi," if there is one way to describe part of my personality. In fact, I can't even stand myself when I make grammar errors! Much less will I stand for other people to attempt to make themselves sound like grammar experts when they hold no such knowledge!!

1. Dentren's proposal is still by far the best proposal, in terms of agreement (Me and him agree on it, not sure about Likeminas; but you apparently don't).
2. The "but" is not illogical. It is perfect usage of English grammar.
3. "Leads" is not going against Wiki's pillars. You're attempting to use a policy that you don't even understand.
4. Instead of using "Chilean historians," I think that the word "Chilean government" is better; which is what you suggested.

In light of all of these things, the new improved sentence would be:

• Chile was not mentioned in the text of the treaty, but was not informed about its existence, which led the Chilean government to believe that the treaty was in reality aimed against Chile.

I think that this should be something everybody can agree with. I'll even take it to the Reference Desk for Language in order to "check" (Even though I know I really don't need to check it) the sentence's grammar.--$%MarshalN20%$ (talk) 14:54, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

I did a check at the reference desk, and they said that the sentence was OK. However, they proposed an even better sentence:

• Although Chile was not mentioned in the text of the treaty, the signatories' failure to reveal it to the Chilean government led the government to conclude that the alliance was directed against Chile.

This sounds much better.--$%MarshalN20%$ (talk) 18:11, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

It has been argued that the secret treaty was never meant to be revealed to Chile the treaty. Can we state that there was a failure in showing it to Chile? Im not sure about the usage of the English word failure. I would say

• Even if Chile was not mentioned in the text of the treaty, it was not informed about its existence, as in case of Argentina, which leads Chilean historians to believe that the treaty was in reality aimed against Chile. What about this version? This issue seems more of a wording problem than a problem of content.Dentren | 18:40, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Most of the "problems" listed at the list are wording problems. That's why I said in the other section that I'm sure most of these sentences won't really change much; but I suppose that it's always good to do grammar fixes (if they are such "big" issues that lead to accusations of "Peruvian POV;" which in reality should be called "Peruvian Grammar Errors." Noting, however, that the grammar errors themselves are really not present.). Here are a couple of points I would like to mention from your sentence:

1. It's not necessary to mention Argentina in this sentence. In the paragraph, Argentina is already mentioned (5th paragraph, "Background" section).
2. "Chilean historians" is incorrect as other historians (non-Chilean) have also mentioned this to be a possibility. Keysanger's proposal of "Chilean government" is more accurate.

Which, leads me to propose this sentence (which the Ref. Lang. Desk of Misplaced Pages suggested):

• Although Chile was not mentioned in the text of the treaty, the signatories' failure to reveal it to the Chilean government led the government to conclude that the alliance was directed against Chile.

What do the rest of you think?--$%MarshalN20%$ (talk) 18:56, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

• Although Chile was not mentioned in the text of the treaty, the signatories' failure to reveal it to the Chilean government led the Chilean government to conclude that the alliance was directed against Chile. I fixed your version a little bit, by saying Chile it is understood that its refering to the Chilean government. Dentren | 19:17, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Dentren. Yes, I like the new sentence even better. So, is this problem solved?--$%MarshalN20%$ (talk) 20:19, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

What failure can be there, the treaty was secret.

• remove leads, don't explain or conclude things
• that was not a failure, it was intended

--Keysanger (talk) 20:22, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

"Leads" is part of the grammar structure of the sentence. Please learn more about English grammar before attempting to erroneously use Misplaced Pages policies.

"Failure" is correctly used in the sentence. Peru & Bolivia showed the treaty to Argentina, which is explained on the other sentence, but failed to show it to Chile.

Be part of the solution not the problem. If you don't know what you're talking about, don't create an argument based on ignorance.--$%MarshalN20%$ (talk) 20:40, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Im not sure about the usage of "failure", but as I understand it you "fail" when you intend do something but are able to do that. Is there any source that claims that Peru and Bolivia did not "failed" in that? For thisv reason I propose this version:

• Although Chile was not mentioned in the text of the treaty, its secret nature led the Chilean government to conclude that the alliance was directed against Chile. Dentren | 09:33, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

I think that is acceptable.--$%MarshalN20%$ (talk) 14:21, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

As long as the text "explains" the history, the sentence is wrong. And as long as the text says failure for secrecy ... --Keysanger (talk) 19:14, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

How can a consensus be reached if you keep making childish rants, illogical arguments, and silly demands? Read Dentren's last proposal, that is by far the best. It seems obvious to me that all you want to do is delete these sentences in order to make it seem as if Chile is some sort of victim. Dentren's last proposal presents the sourced facts as they are, with no support attached to either side.--$%MarshalN20%$ (talk) 20:15, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Issue nr 7

Heavy British capital investment drove development through the area, and most of the exploitation of the coastal region of Atacama was conducted by Chilean companies and British investments.

• I dont see the problem with this, Keysanger, you said that sentence is POV because Brittish drove Chileans, but this sentence does not say that, it just explain that the expoitation of the coast was driven by Chileans and Brittish capital. You ask for sources? The rejection of Brittish influence on the war is in my eyes a minority view originated in a nationalistic Chilean milieu. Dentren | 18:59, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Please write the text of the sentences supporting your statement. And take care about the period of time regarding the text. I can't read your thoughts --Keysanger (talk) 19:10, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

el tercer rubro de las inversiones Brítanicas fue la explotacion del salitre, ellos vieron con claridad la importancia de este mineral y resolveireon utilizar al máximo todas las oportunidades financieras que ofracia la explotacion y comercialización del salitre, en un pais que no tenia los recursos necesarios para producir este mineral que el mercado mundial necesitaba con urgencia. pp 35-36 Influencia Britanica en el salitre

Fighting broke out when Chilean entrepreneurs and mine-owners in present-day Tarapacá Region and Antofagasta Region, then belonging to Peru and Bolivia, respectively, resisted new taxes, the formation of monopoly companies, and other impositions. In those provinces, most of the deposits of nitrate--a valuable ingredient in fertilizers and explosives -- were owned and mined by Chileans and Europeans, in particular the British.U.S. Library of Congress

There you see that the Brittish drove the development of the nitrate industry. To think that the Chileans did it alone without help is a mistake. Dentren | 20:25, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Keysanger, the pages are provided in each of the references. This one is enough: Read pages 609 and 651. There is no need for sentences to be shown if the book pages are provided. In standard MLA citations, there exists no needs to include specific sentences into your references. It takes away more article space (Increases the article size), and it really serves to make the referencing lists completely unreadable (which goes against Misplaced Pages policy of Manual of Style and Readability).

Also, just as Dentren mentions, British influence in the War of the Pacific is a SOURCED FACT. You can't hide the sun with one finger; much less when the "sun never sets on the British Empire." The United States also had a certain degree of investments in Peru, which led to them to support Peru diplomatically. That's also a sourced fact; and yet nobody is accusing anybody of "POV" because the US is mentioned in the article. Why do you want to push a personal agenda with your beliefs?--$%MarshalN20%$ (talk) 20:07, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Issue Nr. 26

Text:

In South America, the War of the Pacific was not well-received.

Marshal, your sentence is undocumented. Can you find enough reliable sources to support such conclusive sentence. I think, Argentina got Patagonia in consequence of the war and Brasil looked henceforth to defeated immediate neighbors. I was never engaged with the issue but I will accept only serious, reliable and numerous sources. I will prefer to delete such peacockish assertion. Do you agree?

--Keysanger (talk) 11:57, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

I will not discuss this because you're not going in the order that was established. If we're going to "play this game" of the "bad list," you're going to have to stick to its rules.--$%MarshalN20%$ (talk) 14:56, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

What say the others Wikipedians? to delete?

--Keysanger (talk) 20:24, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

If no sources that support the claim are found and included, remove it. Selecciones de la Vida (talk) 15:37, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Remoed --Keysanger (talk) 18:33, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Marshall : No more changes without consensus

Marshall,

you screwed things up. You have added already to the article 28 problems and I will not accept your changes without explicit consensus of the editors. Stop your edits without consensus.

--Keysanger (talk) 19:11, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

WTF?--$%MarshalN20%$ (talk) 19:30, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Requesting article protection might solve that for now.

Likeminas (talk) 19:48, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Thus far, from the first three "problems" in the article, consensus has been agreed and my statements have changed little to almost nothing. What I find funny from that is that I'm certain all of the "list" of things you have here will end up the same. I have not done anything wrong, and I'm quite proud of the amount of sourced information I have added.--$%MarshalN20%$ (talk) 19:52, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

I have to agree, adding Peruheroico.com and pushing Britain's role into the begining of the article among other things can make proud anyone.

Likeminas (talk) 19:56, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Like I said before, be part of the solution and not the problem.--$%MarshalN20%$ (talk) 20:02, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

If you want to be part of the solution you shouldn't boast to much. :). Dentren | 20:05, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

lol. Boasting is the only way I can keep my other two pals entertained.--$%MarshalN20%$ (talk) 20:07, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Cuek!

Likeminas (talk) 20:10, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

lololol. Not really sure what that means, but it sounded funny. Well, at least I know you have a sense of humor. Plop!--$%MarshalN20%$ (talk) 20:13, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Excessive Tagging (Enough is Enough)

This article is getting turned into a carnival of tags!--$%MarshalN20%$ (talk) 18:05, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Why dont we put just the

{{multiple issues}}

tag? Dentren | 18:39, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Sure, ehm, Dentren?--$%MarshalN20%$ (talk) 18:33, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

right its me. Dentren | 18:39, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Yay! I thought it was the cookie monster for a second. lol.--$%MarshalN20%$ (talk) 18:43, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

The reader have to be warned about the issues of the article. I told already that the article is awfully biased. Now you see waht taht means. --Keysanger (talk) 19:50, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

All I see here is a heavily biased editor disrupting an article because he has a pro-Chilean agenda to promote in the article. None of your edits are constructive (add anything beneficial to the article), and the majority of your edits promote more discord that prevents the advance towards a solution.--$%MarshalN20%$ (talk) 20:17, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

You have reinstalled your biased version after Likeminas restored a less contentious version. See the list of flaws and and accept that your view of the history is contested. The reader has to be warned about the problems of the article and in fact about all the problems. Don't hide the faults, Misplaced Pages works with transparency.

--Keysanger (talk) 00:31, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

What list of flaws? Why do you keep trying to push your personal agenda? Likeminas made a mistake in removing 34,000 bytes of sourced information; that's understandeable as we are human beings. Both me and Likeminas have agreed to come to more friendly terms. However, you keep vandalizing the article by adding a series of tags that can be easily summarized in one. Moreover, you're comparing my re-addition of 34,000 bytes of sourced information to your vandalism. The sourced information I have added is contested because you want to push your personal agenda against it. Well Keysanger, the sad thing for you is that you will not be able to delete sourced information unless you manage to somehow find other sourced information that can dispute it. That's how Misplaced Pages works.--$%MarshalN20%$ (talk) 00:48, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

The solution is simple. The flaws are there, let the warnings there. --Keysanger (talk) 00:59, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Now you're using a sock-puppet in order to push your POV! The list of vandalism, POV pushing, and other similar things just goes on and on.--$%MarshalN20%$ (talk) 01:11, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I wasn't logged. 85.177.77.249 is my IP. Now you have it. Keysanger dit it!.

--Keysanger (talk) 01:32, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

I really do have better things to do than argue with you over your vandalism. Dentren was the one who originally corrected the excessive amount of tags, and I'm completely sure that I will not be the only one who will do something about this excessive amount of tags. Tags have a purpose, but when you overuse them that purpose is lost.--$%MarshalN20%$ (talk) 01:38, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

No need for excessive tagging, it is evident that there are exisiting disputes. Selecciones de la Vida (talk) 15:47, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

The reader has to be warned. Every tag alludes to a significant and different non-conformance in the article:

• POV - Neutral point of view is one of Misplaced Pages's three core content policies.
• Cite check - malpractice of sources
• Need consensus - When two or more editors cannot reach an agreement by editing, consensus is sought on article talk pages.
• POV-check - It lacks unbiased writing is the fair, analytical description of all relevant sides of a debate, including the mutual perspectives and the published evidence. Editorial bias toward one particular point of view should be removed or repaired (WP:NPOV)
• Disputed - Misplaced Pages:Accuracy dispute : it contains a lot of unlikely information, without providing references, it contains information which is particularly difficult to verify. In, for example, a long list, some errors have been found, suggesting that the list as a whole may need further checking. it has been written (or edited) by a user who is known to write inaccurately on the topic.
• multiple issues - there are not one but multiple flaws.

So every tag is necessary, lack of wake-up call could be misunderstood by the reader.

--Keysanger (talk) 18:57, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Keysanger, you keep vandalising the article with the excessive tagging.--$%MarshalN20%$ (talk) 19:59, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

References

1. http://books.google.com/books?id=qqMMAAAAYAAJ&pg=PT9&dq=Guerra+del+Pacifico+Chile+Peru+Brasil
2. http://books.google.com/books?id=qGkJNCeqnI4C&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_navlinks_s
3. Donald Worcester:

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

4. Alfred Barnaby Thomas:

   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

5. Charles de Varigny:

   …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.

   Translation: …Chile would hesitate more if Bolivia, by means of a ofensive and defensive treaty signed with Peru, could dispose of the military and naval forces of that country. Such a treaty was the condition imposed upon herself by Bolivia to accept the adventure proposed by Peru. They started the negotiations and the treaty was signed, to be kept in secret, in order to give Peru the chance of offering her mediation, (and) not to publish the treaty unless Chile refused the mediation and made a declaration of war (Translation by Keysanger)

6. Gonzalo Bulnes:

   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.

7. Diego Barros Arana:

   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.

   Translation whatever, in fact on 6 February 1873 was signed in Lima a secret treaty of alliance defensive and offensive, as a result of that both signer obligated themself to march united against any extern foe that menaced their independence, souvereignity or territorial integrity. (Translation by Keysanger)

8. Que Pasa:

   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.”

9. Chilean Manifest:

   (starts on page 170)

   …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…

10. New York Times:

    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.

11. Tommaso Caivano:

    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.

    (Translation) 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

12. http://www.connuestroperu.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1377&Itemid=30
13. http://peruheroico.com/inicio/plinio-esquinarila-bellido/86-plinio-esquinarila-bellido/175-inglaterra-uso-a-chile-contra-el-peru.html
14. http://www.memoriachilena.cl/archivos2/pdfs/MC0000312.pdf Page 609, 651
15. http://www.memoriachilena.cl/archivos2/pdfs/MC0000312.pdf Page 609-610, 658
16. http://www.elcorreo.eu.org/esp/article.php3?id_article=3426
17. http://www.memoriachilena.cl/archivos2/pdfs/MC0000312.pdf Page 37
18. http://www.memoriachilena.cl/archivos2/pdfs/MC0000312.pdf Page 656-658
19. http://books.google.com/books?id=QzUPAAAAYAAJ&sitesec=reviews&source=gbs_navlinks_s Page 139

• All unassessed articles
• C-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)