Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 02:49, 3 August 2011

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. South America: Bolivia / Chile / Peru High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject South America, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to South America 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.South AmericaWikipedia:WikiProject South AmericaTemplate:WikiProject South AmericaSouth America High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Bolivia (assessed as High-importance). This article is supported by WikiProject Chile (assessed as High-importance). This article is supported by WikiProject Peru (assessed as Top-importance). 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 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 March 23, 2011.

Archives

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

This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present.

Maps are wrong

Although some parts of the current andean territory of Argentina were nominally Bolivian before the war, the maps on the infobox and the main body of the text go far beyond that, incluiding vast parts of Argentine territory that were not Bolivian, such as the cities of Jujuy and Salta and their territories of influence. BTW, some of these were well-defined borders after Tarija chose to be part of Bolivia. I think these maps have to be mended. Salut, --IANVS (talk) 21:30, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

France?

No mention of France's observation mission? How about of this figure involved: http://en.wikipedia.org/Abel-Nicolas_Bergasse_Dupetit_Thouars. His role is understood in Peru to have prevented excesses by the Chilean army after besting Peru's defenders and moving into Lima. Just curious. Rafajs77 (talk) 05:41, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

International intervention in the War of the Pacific is present but subtle. It was attempted (on my part) to include many of these international views on the conflict, but other users used it to include their original research; this is why much of this information no longer appears on the article.--MarshalN20 | 22:12, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

• Thanks Marshal, I appreciate the response. It makes sense that it would open up to original research, since there is so little written about it. Even my question is premised on only observation (there are statues, parks, streets and institutes named for the guy in Lima). Rafajs77 (talk) 00:56, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Article shows the extrem nacionalistic P-B POV

Despite an agreement Talk:War of the Pacific/Archive 7#Mediation of defensive/offensive issue. the current article insists to presume a defensive alliance: 'The forces of Chile fought a defensive alliance of Bolivia and Peru.. That is a clear violation of the NPOV of the Misplaced Pages rules. --Keysanger (what?) 10:48, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

I've reviewed the whole introductory section and no "extreme nationalistic POV" exists. The section was completely re-made by the team of editors in the Guild of copy-editors. The sentence which you cite, and the section as a whole, avoids using any specific national POV. Unless you have any other concerns, please remember to remove the NPOV tag.--MarshalN20 | 15:31, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Did you read also what you agreed on Sounds good to me. Thank you Gigs.--$%MarshalN20%$ (talk) 14:15, 17 August 2009 (UTC)?. --Keysanger (what?) 16:52, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

If you really do feel that the introductory section is so "extremely nationalistic", then I suggest you discuss it in the NPOV noticeboard. Nonetheless, I once again tell you that nothing in the introductory section is either "extreme" or "nationalistic"; and you really would be wasting your time.--MarshalN20 | 18:10, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

I repeat for you the agreement:

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

There is no defensive alliance, there is a so-called defensive alliance that was, according to Chile, one of the reasons of the war and WP has to express that Professional opinion is split on whether the alliance was solely defensive or whether it was offensive and defensive. Best regards, --Keysanger (what?) 18:57, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Go to the NPOV noticeboard if you have an issue with the introductory section. The "agreement" you write about applies to a discussion held over the "crisis" section, which to my understanding remains untouched since the last editions and explains the perspectives of the nations involved.--MarshalN20 | 20:01, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Keysanger, read carefully what are you saying: "there is a so-called defensive alliance that was, according to Chile", that's a Chilean POV sir, why the Chilean-version of the facts is better than Peruvian and Bolivian version? In fact, the text of the treaty which form the alliance didn't do not mention the Chilean nation as a subject or reason of the alliance. The text is clear sir, your interpretation is not relevant for the article. Greetings.Cloudaoc (talk) 20:09, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Changing "a defensive alliance" to "an alliance" displays a NPOV. What one side views as defensive may be interpreted as offensive to the other. The treaty between Bolivia and Peru was also "secretive" and that could be added as well, but for sake of maintaining a neutral context, labeling it just an alliance is appropriate. Selecciones de la Vida (talk) 20:22, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Everyone, just take a minute to think before anything gets out of hand.

• First of all, if any of you really want to contest the current introductory section, I have already recommended plenty of times for you to use the NPOV noticeboard. I have also stated that it's going to be a waste of time, but it's up to you if you really want to ultimately resort to it.
• Second, the introductory section is nothing more than a summary of the whole article.
• Third, regarding the issue with the wording, it's not a matter of presenting a specific POV. In the "Crisis" section it is explained that Chile viewed the alliance as offensive, and declared war upon the Peruvian acknowledgement of its existence. The summary simply reflects the obvious: The Peru-Bolivia document was a mutual defense treaty, called upon by Bolivia upon the Chilean invasion of Antofagasta, and activated by Peru after the Chilean declaration of war. Regardless of any POV, the events which took place all conclude that the alliance was defensive; hence the summary including the term "a defensive alliance".
• Fourth, as suggested, it would certainly be appropiate to add: "Bolivia activated its secret mutual defense treaty with Peru."

There is nothing wrong about either of these things, nothing "extremely nationalistic" (which is really an exaggeration and quite an aggressive title for this section). Best of wishes.--MarshalN20 | 21:58, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

I took some time to edit the first paragraph. What do you think?

The War of the Pacific (Template:Lang-es) took place in western South America from 1879 through 1883. The forces of Chile fought a defensive alliance of Bolivia and Peru. The conflict is also known as the "Saltpeter War", as disputes over mineral-rich territory were the war's prime cause. The conflict originated in a dispute between Chile and Bolivia over a 10 cent tax on the Antofagasta Nitrate & Railway Company, but Bolivia and Chile's controversy over ownership of Atacama preceded and laid foundations for the conflict. Peru entered the affair in 1879, initially attempting to mediate the dispute. When Chile invaded the Bolivian port city of Antofagasta on February 14, 1879, Bolivia sought the activation of a secret mutual defense treaty with Peru. After learning of the treaty's existence, Chile declared war on both countries on April 5, 1879, and the following day Peru activated the alliance.

The last sentence seems to be a nice summary of Chile's reaction to the treaty.--MarshalN20 | 22:23, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

I posted an arbitration request against user MarshalN20 because of his edits in the article. Best regrads, --Keysanger (what?) 15:11, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Alright, good luck with that.--MarshalN20 | 16:39, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

The discussion of the issue is in Misplaced Pages:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard#War_of_the_Pacific and will continue as soon as the "Bolivian declaration of war" is finished. --Keysanger (what?) 09:23, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Template:Undue weight

• However, under international law at that time neither side had actually declared war.

It is astonishing that 2 sources are enough to write in the that there was no Bolivian declaration of war. One of the sources (a broken link) is the Peruvian newspaper "La Razon", known not for its scientific art but for his anti-Chilean resentements.

I found 15 sources that state that there was a Bolivian declaration of war and such a overwhelming opinion about the Bolivian declaration of war must be included in the text and as the common view of the historians. The no-declaration-of-war theory can also be included but as a rand view. Here the list of sources:

1. William F. Sater in "Andean Tragedy", page 28 states:

   Two weeks after the Chilean occupation of Antofagasta, he declared that had imposed "a state of war" on Bolivia. Apparently this decree did not constitute a formal declaration of belligerence, which he announced on 18 March.

2. "Documentary History of the Tacna-Arica dispute, University of Iowa studies in the social sciences, Vol. 8", by William Jefferson Dennis, here, page 69: On March 14 Bolivia advised representatives of foreign powers that a state of war existed with Chile. ... Godoi advised President Pinto that this move was to prevent Chile from securing armaments abroad ...
3. "Andean Tragedy", William F. Sater, page 39:Thus, Daza's declaration of war was a godsend ..., also page 42in March he suddenly declared war on Chile
4. "Latin America's Wars: The age of the caudillo, 1791-1899" By Robert L. Scheina, page 376: On March 18 Bolivia declared war and confiscated all Chilean property in Bolivia and under the terms of a secret treaty ..."
5. "Wars and Peace Treaties, 1816-1991", By Erik Goldstein, page 182: As result of this action Bolivia declared war on Chile (1.March)
6. "The history of Chile" By John Lawrence Rector, page 100: Bolivia declared war and attemted to expel all Chileans from its territory
7. onwar.com: Bolivia then declared war on Chile and called upon Peru for help.
8. country-data.com: Bolivia, in alliance with Peru, declared war on Chile on March 1, ...'
9. andrewclem.com: ... , but Bolivia declared war on Chile and made known its “secret” alliance with Peru in March, ...
10. globalsecurity.com: Bolivia, in alliance with Peru, declared war on Chile on March 1,...
11. Encarta: Bolivia declared war and was joined by Peru, a partner in a secret alliance.
12. "The geopolitics of security in the Americas: hemispheric denial from Monroe ..." by Martin Sicker here: and Bolivia declared war on 14 February 1879 ...
13. "A history of Chile‎" - Page 326, by Luis Galdames, Isaac Joslin Cox - History - 1941 - 565 pages: The government of Chile refused to accede to this. Meanwhile Peru mobilized its army rapidly, Bolivia declared war against Chile, and the press of those ...
14. "Chile and the War of the Pacific"‎ - Page 9 by William F. Sater - History - 1986 - 343 pages Two weeks after Chile occupied the disputed territory, Daza declared war.
15. "The Bolivia-Chile-Peru dispute in the Atacama Desert" by Ronald Bruce St. John, Clive H. Schofield here: "Once Bolivia declared war on March 14 1879 ...".

Best Regards, --Keysanger (what?) 16:11, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Bolivia didn't declare war. Even the first source you present states it: "Apparently this decree did not constitute a formal declaration of belligerence, which he announced on 18 March." "Undue weight" doesn't apply here since even Daza explains that the decree he presented was not a declaration of war.--MarshalN20 | 16:45, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

You forget the 14 others, what about that?. Best Regards, --Keysanger (what?) 23:07, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

You can provide 100+ sources on the topic, but the article already presents:

1. The view that Chile saw Daza's decree as a declaration of war.
2. The view that his decree was not a declaration of war.

The only new thing you have provided which is important to note is that Daza announced, on March 18, that he did declare war. You can take it to an administrator's forum, but like in the other issue, it will lead you to nothing.--MarshalN20 | 03:19, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi MarshallN20, Keysanger seems to have provided quite a bit of support for his position here. Do you have reliable sources that also state that this decree was not a declaration of war? Generally, in situations like this, it is appropriate to note in the article that there is disagreement in the reliable sources. Alex Harvey (talk) 04:10, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I do have reliable sources for this matter. First, a quick analysis:

1. William F. Sater is used 3 times in his list, and the source contradicts itself. (P. 39) "Thus, Daza's declaration of war was a godsend". (P. 28) "Apparently this decree did not constitute a formal declaration of belligerence, which he announced on 18 March." Something is incongruent with this source; how is it possible for a decree to not be a declaration of war in Page 28, but then become a declaration of war on Page 39?
2. The Iowa source does not support Keysanger's view as, "On March 14 Bolivia advised representatives of foreign powers that a state of war existed with Chile", does not translate into "Bolivia declared war on Chile".

Please quit trying to trick users with your lists. You have been warned of this plenty of times.--MarshalN20 | 15:02, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

My proposal is to consider William F. Sater as a reliable professor of Latin American History at California State University (others , ). I am convinced that such a source is more reliable than the Peruvian newspaper "La Razon". If you have better sources, please feel free to let us know more. Best Regards, --Keysanger (what?) 15:38, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Sater is one person, not multiple persons. It's illogical to gather 3 sources from the same author and try to pass them off as different; writing: "I found 15 sources". It's also surprising that such a reliable source as Sater contradicts himself within the same book. If Daza is the author of his presidential decree, and Sater explains that Daza stated his decree was not a declaration of war; then how is it possible for a few pages later for Sater to claim the decree was a declaration of war? Sater places himself in a position in which he contrasts with Daza's opinion of his own decree.--MarshalN20 | 16:29, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

MarshalN20 Sources

1. Ramiro Prudencio Lizon (Historian and Diplomat) : "In order for Chile to be able to advance further north an official war declaration was necessary. And it wasn't this country but rather Bolivia the one who sent an internal decree which was afterwards interpreted as a true declaration of war. Obviously, Daza had no interest in declaring war, because he knew that Bolivia was not in conditions to affront a campaign against a country much superior in belligerent resources and which counted with a powerful navy."
2. Atilio Sivirichi, "Historia del Perú" (1932), page 193: " was skilfully interpreted by the Chilean government as a declaration of war and as a justification for its occupation of the ."
3. William F. Sater, "Andean Tragedy", page 28: "Two weeks after the Chilean occupation of Antofagasta, he declared that Chile had imposed "a state of war" on Bolivia. Apparently this decree did not constitute a formal declaration of belligerence, which he announced on 18 March."
4. Tommaso Caivano, "Historia de la guerra de América entre Chile, Perú y Bolivia", pages 61-62 (): ", as can be clearly read within it, does not do anything more than dictate a few measures relative to true the state of war in which Bolivia and Chile found themselves after the invasion of by , and, like it textually and carefully states, "while this state of war imposed by Chile upon Bolivia", was interpreted by Chile in an extremely original manner."
5. Mariano Felipe Paz Soldán, "Narracion Historica de la Guerra de Chile contra el Peru y Bolivia". On Page 80 he presents the Bolivian March 1st declaration and explains its nature (at no point describing it as a declaration of war). On Page 86 makes first mention of a declaration of war, this coming from Chile to both Peru and Bolivia. Text from Page 86 (): "War having been declared by Chile, it needed to justify its conduct upon the neutral nations and, at a loss of good reasons founded in law and corroborated by deeds, opted for falsity, presenting a series of situations under a distortion of reality, and others completely false. said among other things that Peru did not gesture Bolivia in time to lead it towards a good path and procede with fewer recklesness and violence in its determinations."
6. Valentín Abecia Baldivieso, "The History of Bolivia in International Relations. Vol 2.," page 73: "But in reality no such declaration of war took place. The decree (Hilarión Daza's decree) to which this characteristic is attributed only alludes that "Chile has indeed invaded the national territory", stipulating that "all commerce and communication with the Republic of Chile is cut for the duration of the war that has promoted upon Bolivia." He later states that Chileans should vacate the country given deadlines in cases of emergency and taking action on property belonging to them. Therefore, it is not correct to attribute that Decree the characteristics of a declaration of war, because under the international law of the time, it was not. The steps taken were for security because Chile had taken Antofagasta. On April 3 the declaration of war by the Chilean Congress was approved, and by the 5th it became known throughout the press."
7. Guillermo Cortés Lutz, "La Guerra del Pacífico: Graves Errores en la Enseñanza de la Historia y su Distorsión en los Sistemas Educativos en Chile, Perú y Bolivia" : "The key moment to give the "go" on war starts in the day planned for the auction, Chilean troops, at the command of Colonel Emilio Sotomayor, occupy Antofagasta. Later comes the negative of Peru to maintain its impartiality, Manuel Prado, arguments that he has been tied by a secret pact, and with this Chile declares war on Peru and Bolivia on April 5, 1879, without ignoring the invasion manu militari, was the start of the war."
   • Note: Cortes Lutz does not attribute March 1st decree as declaration of war, but rather states the Chilean declaration and invasion is what starts the war.
8. Richard Gibbs, USA Envoy Extraordinary and Minister Plenipotentiary, "Message from the President of the United States" , pages 198-199 (March 12, 1879): "Up to the present, I have no information of a formal declaration of war having been made either by Chili or Bolivia. Chili has, by force of arms through her vessels of war, taken posession of the coast of Bolivia and holds the whole coast, establishing marine, military, and civil government. The only official action taken by Bolivia is a proclamation by President Daza, which is not a declaration of war. I inclose a copy of it in Spanish, taken from a Lima paper, and a translation from the South Pacific Times, of Callao."
9. William Spence Robertson, "History of the Latin-American Nations" .
   • Page 324: "On February 14, 1879, which was the date set by Bolivia for the sale of the company's property to ensure the payment of the taxes, Chilean soldiers took possession of Antofagasta. Two weeks later Bolivia announced that in consequence a state of war existed between her and Chile. After the Peruvian government had declined to proclaim its neutrality in the struggle, Chile declared war upon Bolivia and Peru. The conflict which ensued has been designated by South Americans as the War of the Pacific."
   • Page 345: "But the efforts of Peruvian diplomats were fruitless. After Peru had declined to proclaim her neutrality, the Chilean government--which claimed to have ben just informed of the secret treaty of alliance between Bolivia and Peru -- declared war upon the allies on April 5, 1879.
   • Note: Robertson explains that Bolivia announced Chile began the war ("In consequence" to Chilean soldiers taking possession of Antofagasta).
10. General Directory of Statistics, Chile
• Page 3: "The old enemity of Peru and the perfidious machinations of its government being thus discovered, war was inevitable, and was declared by Chile on the 4th. of April 1879."
• Page 6: "The present war which Chile makes against Peru and Bolivia."
• Note: Both statements are pretty clear. March 1st declaration isn't even mentioned.
11. Edward D. Mansfield, "Electing to Fight: Why Emerging Democracies Go to War" , Page 202: "Chile's role as initiator of the War of the Pacific against Peru and Bolivia in 1879, fought over nitrate deposits, demonstrates the dangers of coalition politics in weakly institutionalized states undergoing an incomplete democratic transition."
    • Note: March 1st decree ignored.
12. Jack L. Snyder. Co-author to "Electing to Fight: Why Emerging Democracies Go to War."
13. John B. Allcock, "Border and Territorial Disputes" , page 574: "After Bolivia had broken an agreement signed with Chile at Sucre in 1874 by placing fresh taxes on Chilean firms already exploiting nitrates in the common zone, a Chilean expeditionary force in February 1879 took possession of Antofagasta and Mejillones (on the coast) and Caracoles (inland). Chile called on Peru to proclaim its neutrality in the conflict, and, when the latter refused, declared war on both."
    • Note: March 1st decree ignored.
14. Benjamin Keen, "A History of Latin America" , page 256: "In February 1879, despite Chilean warnings that expropriation of Chilean enterprises would void the treaty of 1874, the Bolivian government ordered the confiscation carried out. On February 14, the day set for the seizure and sale of the Chilean properties, Chilean troops occupied the port of Antofagasta, encountering no resistance, and proceeded to extend Chilean control over the whole province. Totally unprepared for war, Peru made a vain effort to mediate between Chile and Bolivia. Chile, however, having learned of the secret Peruvian-Bolivian alliance, charged Peru with intolerable duplicity and declared war on both Peru and Bolivia on April 5, 1879."
    • Note: Another source in which the March 1st decree isn't even mentioned as anything relevant to the war and Chile is presented as the declarer of war.
15. Keith Haynes. Co-author to "A History of Latin America."

These sources are more than enough to demonstrate that Daza's decree was not a true declaration of war. Not only does Daza explain this, as sourced by Sater, but the information is backed up by historical analysis. On the other hand, the sources presented by Keysanger are merely textual parrots, merely stating that Bolivia declared war without any further analysis. It's important to mention that the article does present Chile's view about Daza's decree. However, Keysanger is trying to use the WP concept of "Undue weight" to present Chile's POV as supreme and leave the analysis of Daza's decree (including Daza's own opinion about his decree) as "minority views".--MarshalN20 | 18:49, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Your rationale is broken because you contradict yourself: W.F.Sater, is a source for or not for a Bolivian Declaration of war?. Now you say that he is a source for NO declaration of war. Above you say that he was cited three times. What about the other two?. Do you have also reliable sources?. Best Regards, --Keysanger (what?) 21:19, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

I honestly don't understand what it is you are trying to state. I have already provided the necessary amount of sources to discard your "Undue Weight" claim.--MarshalN20 | 22:45, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi Marshal, I am inclined to agree that Keysanger has made a point here, and that it is probably too strong to have Misplaced Pages assert as a fact that, "under international law at that time neither side had actually declared war". That is an absolute statement. I think the statement should be attributed, i.e. "According to X, ...". When Misplaced Pages's voice makes an absolute statement, it should be a statement of an uncontested fact. Also I am finding it confusing that Keysanger's sources do indeed say that Bolivia declared war - not just that Chile thought Bolivia declared war. If these historians are wrong, the article doesn't help me to understand why they are wrong. I am happy to be persuaded otherwise? Also (a suggestion to both Keysanger & MarshalN20), having multiple threads open discussing multiple disputes at the same time is probably not ideal. Should we try to resolve this point first? Alex Harvey (talk) 15:47, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

That's not Keysanger's point, but rather your point Alex. Keysanger's point is that there is "Undue Weight" in the article, which is not true. The sources I have provided are from a long timespan (starting from the early 20th century all the way to the 2000's) of different historians from different nationalities (including Daza's own explanation of his decree). Your point, Alex, about the "International law" part and its status as "uncontested fact" is correct. Going back in time, I found this old consensus statement, proposed by me, in which the four users discussing this same issue at that time agreed :

How about this for statement: "After the Chilean invasion of Antofagasta, Hilarión Daza made a presidential decree which demanded the expulsion of Chileans and the nationalizing of Chilean private property. Due to its aggressiveness, the Chilean government understood the decree as a declaration of war. However, although both nations had already taken aggressive actions, in reality no war had yet been formally declared from either side of the conflict."-- (talk) 00:56, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

This discussion reminded me of the existence of this consensus statment. I no idea what happened to it until now: . It turns out that Keysanger massively deleted the consensus statement and sources in order to impose his POV. Strangely enough, he is trying to do the exact same thing at this point, except that now he tries to use the concept of "Undue Weight". I don't believe in history repeating itself, but this sure does seem like a case of Déjà vu. What I plan to do at this point is propose another consensus statement, which may take a few minutes.--MarshalN20 | 17:10, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

This discussion continues in Misplaced Pages:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard#War_of_the_Pacific_:_Bolivian_declaration_of_war. --Keysanger (what?) 23:39, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

And yet you keep doing exactly the opposite of what Alex suggests. *Sighs*--MarshalN20 | 23:55, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

If I could recommend calm. I am optimistic that a compromise can be found that will satisfy both parties and also improve the article. It seems to me that both Keysanger & Marshall are making valid points so we need to find a wording that expresses both points fairly. To Marshall, the consensus statement seems to have similar problems to what is already in the article, i.e. it concludes in Misplaced Pages's voice that "in reality no war had yet been formally declared from either side of the conflict". Yet that statement seems to be at odds with reliable sources Keysanger has produced. The issue seems to be not just that the Chilean government interpreted Daza's decree as a declaration of war, but that some modern historians also interpret it that way. It might be an idea to consider some sort of digression in the text: "Some historians have seen the Bolivian decree as a formal declaration of war while others have taken the view that a state of war did not exist until Chile declared so on ." Perhaps we can quote Daza himself on his own view, which seems fair enough. What do we think of a solution along these lines? Alex Harvey (talk) 06:38, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

My answer to this is Misplaced Pages:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard#War_of_the_Pacific_:_Bolivian_declaration_of_war here, see Of course I plead for a cite of the MarshalN20 view,.... Best regards, --Keysanger (what?) 11:23, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Okay I have read all that now. I would like to understand why Sater appears to contradict himself. He is quoted by Marshal as saying, "Two weeks after the Chilean occupation of Antofagasta, declared that Chile had imposed "a state of war" on Bolivia. Apparently this decree did not constitute a formal declaration of belligerence, which he announced on 18 March." He says, "Apparently". Why does he use that word? Is it possible he is revising his earlier opinion? Alex Harvey (talk) 14:40, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm still in the process of creating a new consensus statement. I refuse to participate in the NPOV noticeboard discussion simultaneously to this one in the talk page (as long as Alex remains as a third-view on the discussion). Regarding Sater's contradiction, I honestly do not understand what Sater is trying to state. What I do know is that "Chile and the War of the Pacific" was published in 1986, and "Andean Tragedy" was published in 2007. Perhaps he is indeed revising his previous statements, because the usage of the word "apparently" is of discovery (i.e., I thought that chicken salad was perfect but, apparently, it was a fish salad).--MarshalN20 | 15:27, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

At 18:49, on 22 July 2011 (UTC)MarshalN20 wrote :

Two weeks after the Chilean occupation of Antofagasta, he declared that Chile had imposed "a state of war" on Bolivia. Apparently this decree did not constitute a formal declaration of belligerence, which he announced on 18 March."

But the original text of Sater says:

Two weeks after the Chilean occupation of Antofagasta, he declared that had imposed "a state of war" on Bolivia. Apparently this decree did not constitute a formal declaration of belligerence, which he announced on 18 March.

Alex, do you note the difference?. MarshalN20 has inserted "Chile" into Saters words to confuse and fool the reader. Unbelievable. Best Regards, --Keysanger (what?) 16:44, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

What's unbelievable is that you keep demonstrating me your lack of good faith. Alex, I'm trying my best to believe Keysanger has good intentions, but the above statement (in which he is the one distorting Sater's statement) and his desire of including the term "so-called" in order to incite trouble ( and ), really make it hard. Using his own logic, Keysanger purposely deleted the mention of "Chile" in order to trick both you and me into agreeing with him. Please stop trying to trick us Keysanger.--MarshalN20 | 16:55, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

I deleted my contribution 1 minute later as I discovered that there are two versions of Sater's statement. It seems now that my version is wrong, but I can't say now how ocurred the mistake. Sorry for the problem. Best Regards, --Keysanger (what?) 17:04, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

This isn't the first time you are doing something tricky. For the sake of continuing the discussion little option exists than to continue believing you're making "mistakes", but it all ultimately hurts your own credibility. Please be more careful.--MarshalN20 | 17:13, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

If you think that I am tricking you, feel free to call a admin. Best Regards, --Keysanger (what?) 17:18, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

I revisited a link of former discussions and found:

Under , page 69 and 70, a book of the Iowa University which includes official statements of the governments, letters , etc of that time.

In page 69 and 70 the book, under the title "N°28. Bolivian War Circular, March 31, 1879" states following:

Introduction and source- On March 14 Bolivia advised representatives of foreign powers that a state of war existed with Chile. The announcement was issued from Lima.

...

Meanwhile over the Andes at La Paz, and it may be said here parenthetically that a single telegraph line might have prevented this war, Daza issued letters of marque against Chile on March 26, and a formal war circular on March 31. Taken from British State Papers, 1879-80, Vol. LXXI, pp 926-933.

...

There can't be any doubt that the British government was informed about the Bolivian declaration of war. Also the Chilean governmaent understand the Bolivian declaration of war as a declaration of war (see Gonzalo Bulnes).

Best Regards, --Keysanger (what?) 18:53, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

You're forgetting that Chile invaded Antofagasta on February 14. Antofagasta had never belonged to Chile prior to their invasion and forceful removal of Bolivian authorities. That is what Daza is refering to when he explains that "Chile provoked the war upon Bolivia". That is what the historians I have sourced explain. Even Sater explains how "Apparently this decree did not constitute a formal declaration of belligerence". The point now is to come up with a new NPOV text which exhibits both points of view.--MarshalN20 | 19:10, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Discussing the Sater source

Okay I am glad we agree that Sater is correctly quoted by Marshal and that Sater's more recent view (2007) is that the Daza decree was "apparently" not a formal declaration of war. Can someone with access to Sater 2007 expand on this statement in context? Does he give a foot note? Any other clues as to why he appears to revise his earlier position here? Alex Harvey (talk) 02:02, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Here is the preview of the text from Google Books (). No footnotes, but I can provide the paragraph:

La Paz did not supinely accept the loss of its seacoast: some eight to ten thousand of its residents massed in one of the capital's main plazas demanding weapons so they could expel the Chilean filibusters who had seized their coast. In truth, these enthusiastic but utterly unprepared volunteers could do nothing. Even President Hilarion Daza had to limit himself to symbolic gestures: two weeks after the Chilean occupation of Antofagasta, he declared that Chile had imposed "a state of war" on Bolivia. Apparently this decree did not constitute a formal declaration of belligerence, which he announced on 18 March. Only on 5 April did Santiago reciprocate, plunging South America's west coast into what became known as the War of the Pacific, a conflict which lasted until 1884.

I have no idea what Sater has on his mind or why he seems to have changed his earlier statements. He refers to the decree as a "symbolic gesture", and now claims that Santiago's reciprocation "plunged" South America into the war. I'm sure Sater is a reliable source, considering his PhD, but something is definitely wrong with his process of thought. I am almost done writing the consensus statement, but I am still unsure as to how Sater should be cited. Any ideas?--MarshalN20 | 04:27, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

I suppose we could send an email to Sater and ask him what he meant and he may respond helpfully with other sources. It's quite possible that he has simply changed his mind. Aside from Sater are there any other Western historians who support the position that the Daza decree was not a declaration of war? Alex Harvey (talk) 06:50, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

He apparently works at California State University, but I am not sure how to contact him. From past experience, we should avoid contacting his publisher since they don't bother replying to questions not related to buying the book. However, professors are generally happy to provide their thoughts about their books. Regarding other western historians, all of my sources are from western historians. Unless I am wrong, Ramiro Prudencio Lizon died a few years ago. Google Books is limited in their source material, but I think that all of the sources shown demonstrate that the "Undue Weight" claim is false (plenty of evidence exists in favor of both points of view), and that both "theories" have strong supporters depending on their interpretation.--MarshalN20 | 12:44, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

I repeat here my contribution in Alex's talk page:

Sater wrote more than one book about this theme, he is a profesor of Latin American History in the USA and probably one of the best informed person in the world about the War of the Pacific, so I cited him as often as needed. I don't understand you, Alex, why do you find unfair and tricky to use Sater three times, one from page 28 and another from page 39 of "Andean Tragedy" and other from page 9 of "Chile and the War of the Pacific"‎. Yourself have problems to understand the first citation of Sater (page 28), that I cited wrong, then you can use the second (page 39) and the thrird ones (page 9) to see that Sater without any doubt asserts that there was a Bolivian declaration of war. Keysanger, the bottom line is I did not think you intended to deceive here, and I said the same I think to Marshal. It gave me the impression that 15 historians supported your view whereas it turned out to be 12. In retrospect I can see there may have been other reasons for you to emphasise Sater so sorry about that. Alex Harvey (talk) 13:21, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Sater's sentence: "Two weeks after the Chilean occupation of Antofagasta, he declared that Chile had imposed "a state of war" on Bolivia. Apparently this decree did not constitute a formal declaration of belligerence, which he announced on 18 March." is for me very clear.

The word Apparently in Sater's sentence means "for some persons" and to avoid any ambiguity he says at the end "which he announced on 18 March". We remember that the Chilean occupation of Antofagasta occured on 14 February, so the first "declaration" was two weeks later, we say end of February or begin March. The second declaration was also on 18 March.

If MarshallN20 still has problems with the first citation of Sater, then he should use the second one from a second book and the third one from a third book. I don't see there ANY problem in Sater's stance.

It doesn't matter whether the author of the NYT is a Chinese or a Canadian, it is matter only that it is published by the NYT one of the most consulted newspapers of the world opposite to MarshallN20 "La Razón".--Keysanger (what?) 11:19, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

I repeat. If you have any doubt about Sater's opinion in the first citation, what do you think of the second or the third?. --Keysanger (what?) 11:19, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

I will respond in a numbered format in order to maintain a small amount of order.

1. Sater is one person. You claimed that you had "found 15 sources", when that was not the case. It would be like me holding 3 dollars, but counting them long enough to claim I have 6 dollars. It's not right and ends up tricking/confusing whoever is reading into believing something that is not true.
2. Sater's "Chile and the War of the Pacific" was published in 1986, and "Andean Tragedy" was published in 2007. There is a 21 year gap in Sater's work. During this time he seems to have changed his stance on the Bolivian decree of March 1st. Anything he wrote in 2007 is more up-to-date, more accurate, than whatever he wrote in 1986. History changes partly because historians change their point of view as they become more educated on the subject.
3. The word "apparently" in no way or form can be equated with the term "for some persons".
4. Authorship is important in all works. Companies such as the NYT generally state: "The opinions expressed in this diary do not reflect the newspaper's stance...bla bla bla". Having the opinion of a "Chilean correspondant" is unreliable considering we don't know who really is this person (job, role, etc.).
5. "La Razon" is a reliable newspaper, but what matters is the article written by the historian.

I hope this answers your questions.--MarshalN20 | 13:12, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I may have misunderstood that all three quotes came from the same book, which makes the situation more puzzling. The word "apparently" actually does not mean "for some persons" as you say; but rather "it appears that; as far as one knows; seemingly". If by "apparently" he meant "according to the Bolivians", then it would be a case of badly chosen words. More likely, I think, it suggests that he is uncertain himself on this point. I believe it would be a good solution to email Sater; I am sure he would be only too happy to clarify this for us. In fact I'll do this if you like. The real question, though, is does Marshal have other Western historians to support his position? Alex Harvey (talk) 13:21, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

We discussed the matter in Alex's talk page. I do have some more Western historians as sources. These do not say whether the decree was or was not a declaration of war, but rather their analysis of the war completely discards the March 1st decree. They inadvertedly disregard it as unimportant and, instead, focus on the Chilean invasion of Antofagasta and Chile's later declaration of war as the primary offenses.--MarshalN20 | 23:12, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Please, write this sources here. here is the discussion not in Alex talk page. Best Regards, --Keysanger (what?) 16:38, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

The sources are on the list...--MarshalN20 | 16:42, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Error on the dates

Many of the sources presented by Keysanger throw dates randomly, and others simply don't even bother to mention them. Daza's decree was made on March 1st (this is an established fact), and yet many of Keysanger's sources say that it was on March 18, February 14, and March 14. Some sources don't even provide a date. Considering these sources provide erroneous dates, I consider their usage as reference to "Daza's declaration of war" as incorrect.--MarshalN20 | 23:12, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

MarshalN20's Proposal

Alright, this took a while and hopefully it will be something everyone can agree with to end this part of the discussion. I used Keysanger's sources from the list which mentioned the March 1 decree as a declaration of war, and did not use those which failed to mention it (i.e., those sources that simply stated, "Bolivia declared war", without explaining when or how). I ended up presenting 3 points of view: The first is that of the pro-war group; the second is the anti-war group; the last is the don't-care group (which don't attribute anything important to the March 1st decree). It needs better source formatting, but I'm sure that's not a problem since the material is cited with enough information. Without further words, here it is:

Daza's decree is a controversial subject in the history of the conflict. One side of the historical analysis affirms that the decree signifies a Bolivian declaration of war against Chile. Another side argues that the decree was not a declaration of war, but rather it was a security measure taken in response to the Chilean invasion of Antofagasta. This side further argues that Chile purposely interpreted Daza's decree as a declaration of war in order to justify their invasion of Bolivia. Other historians completely avoid mentioning Daza's decree, and instead focus on other causes for the start of the conflict. Bolivian historian Ramiro Prudencio Lizon states that "Daza had no interest in declaring war, because he knew that Bolivia was not in conditions to affront a campaign against a country much superior in belligerent resources and which counted with a powerful navy." On March 12, Richard Gibbs, United States Ambassador to Peru, wrote a letter to his government explaining that neither Bolivia or Chile had declared war up to that point. According to American historian William F. Sater, on March 18, Hilarión Daza clarified that his March 1st decree was not a declaration of war.

Any suggestions are welcome.--MarshalN20 | 00:43, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

@ Marshal, I am optimistic that this is a move in the right direction but I have some concerns. (1) all the footnotes suggest the weight on each point is proportional to the number of footnotes. I don't believe this truly achieves "balance". (2) I am not sure I like reducing the history to two opposing "sides". I think it could say more about Misplaced Pages's content dispute in the talk page than it does about history. (3) it is heavily weighted to telling Bolivia-Peru's side of the story while Chile's argument is presented as a bald assertion. Obviously the writer (you) agrees with Bolivia-Peru's version. (4) I don't think Sater can be used as a source at all while his Andean Tragedy seems to waver on the point. Whichever version he is presented as supporting, it would be cherry picking - unless he has clarified his view somewhere. Alex Harvey (talk) 14:02, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the comment Alex. I'll reply with numbers:

1. I don't really understand what you mean by the "weight on each point is proportional to the number of footnotes". What I had in mind was mixing all the references for each point into a single one, but in the reference section splitting them up. This is something one of the evaluators of the Peru national football team suggested to me when he was reviewing the article for GA status. Look at references 17, 21, and 120 in the football article. This would avoid having all those numbers in the paragraph. What do you think?
2. I can't think of another way to present the concept that two opposing views exist. Maybe I'm out of creativity. Any suggestions?
3. In terms of balance, I was hoping Keysanger could provide a quote from a Chilean historian/diplomat/foreign relations expert?
4. I avoided mentioning Sater's opinion on the subject since we do not know what his stance truly is. Hence, I used him to reference Daza's opinion about his own decree. I think my sentence is pretty accurate and in no way can be misinterpreted as expressing Sater's opinion on the subject. That is, unless a better option exists?

This paragraph would go right after the paragraph which states Daza's decree. I'm sure the paragraph can be improved, but hopefully it will work as a foundation. --MarshalN20 | 15:18, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Alright. Here is another attempt at consensus:

Daza's decree is a controversial subject in the history of the conflict. The Chilean government interpreted the decree as a declaration of war, and the majority of historians have since then debated the legitimacy of Chile's claim. Historians Erick Goldstein, Hans-Joachim König, and Philipp Reclam are among those who claim that Daza's March 1st decree is a war declaration retaliating to Chile's invasion of Antofagasta. On the other hand, historians Tommaso Caivano, William Sater, and Valentin Abecia Baldivieso are among those who claim that Daza's March 1st decree was only a security measure given Chile's armed invasion and not a declaration of war. Historian Ramiro Prudencion Lizon explains that Chile required an official declaration of war to advance further north into the Bolivian coast; which is why, according to historians Mariano Felipe Paz Soldán and Atilio Sivirichi, Chile purposely distorted Daza's decree to justify its occupation of Bolivia's coast. Nonetheless, a small number of historians, including William Sater and Robert Scheina, believe that Bolivia declared war on March 18; and another group believes the war declaration came in March 14.

I am not sure if it would be good to include the information explaining that the March 18th information is, according to Lavalle (primary source) and Basadre (secondary source), the copy of the March 1st declaration which circulated Chile. As always, any help is appreciated.--MarshalN20 | 01:31, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Review of joint achievements

It is time to recapitulate.

MarshalN20's sources

I see that MarshalN20 is running out of sources:

MarshalN20 could bring 2 Bolivians and 1 Peruvian historians for this new theory and two sources for the Bolivian declaration of war (Sater and William Spence Robertson).

Keysanger's sources

What have we to verify the Bolivian declaration of war:

Review

Please, read carefuly my sources again, I added 3 new sources (Besadre, Farcau, Lavalle/Negri) and compacted Sater's 2 citations of one book to only one source. What can we say about the sources that sustain the Bolivian declaration of war:

1. there are 18 (all no-Chileans and all no-primary sources) books that assert the Bolivian declaration of war
2. under the historians that state it, are two well-respected Peruvian historians (Basadre and F. Denegri L.), and the most famous historians in the English language about the military history of Latin America (W.F.Sater, B.W. Farcau and Sheina)
3. There are problem to fix the date of the Bolivian declaration of war. La Paz was not conected to the telegraph and the news used to be tranported by "chasquis" (running man) in 6 days from La Paz to Tacna and then from Tacna to the world by ship (Caldera, Chile) or telegraph (Lima). Moreover, in the first week after the Chilean occupation of Antofagasta there was no response of the Bolivian government. Why?. We don't know.
4. There were 2 Bolivian declarations, the first one was on 1. March and the second on 14 or 18 March 1879. Why?, is the 14. March the date of the arrival to Lima and 18. March the date of the arrival to Santiago?. We don't know.
5. Both Sater and Farcau point to the fact that there two Bdows, a "simple" and a more "formal" declaration but they don't coincide in the dates of the 2. declaration.
6. Sater, Farcau and Basadre have the Bolivian declaration of war as basis for his thoughts about the war, his causes, course and consequences. Therefore it is imposible to doubt about the Bolivian declaration of war whitout to change completly the actual written history of the war of the pacific.
7. The Bolivian declaration of war is asserted by the majority of the historian.

And what to do with the 4 historians that asserts there was no declaration at all?. It depends. It depends of how much original research we want to do. I refuse to participate in a "WP research group War of the Pacific". It would be very interesting but I don't have so much time and we could not publish the results in the English Misplaced Pages. Anyway, they are a footnote in the history and that should remain also in Misplaced Pages.

I abstain to made a concrete proposal, my English is still not perfect. Best regards, --Keysanger (what?) 11:23, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Discussion

Okay... a few things... definitely Marshal should remove primary sources from his list. Keysanger, your sources (viii) and (x) are the same source. And I don't regard Sater as a reliable source while he appears to make contradictory statements. Are you able to declare the nationality of all your sources just as you've revealed the nationality of Marshal's? Alex Harvey (talk) 12:59, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Okay I have realised why I was confused about the Sater quote. While he says the March 5 decree was not a formal declaration of war, he says Daza declared war on March 18th. I had been assuming this was after the Chilean declaration but now I see that Chile declared war on 5th April. So I withdraw this, Sater is definitely consistent throughout with Keysanger's position. Alex Harvey (talk) 14:15, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Alex, Bolivia did'nt declare war to Chile in March 18, 1879; I don't have any single reference of such statement in any other book apart from Sater, in fact the only document taken by the Chilean Goverment as a "Declaration of War is the Decree of March 1, 1879, and this document says (in Spanish):

Considerando:

Que el Gobierno de Chile ha invadido de hecho el territorio nacional, sin observar las reglas del Derecho de Gentes, ni las prácticas de los pueblos civilizados, expulsando violentamente a las autoridades y nacionales recidentes en el departamento de Cobija.

Que el Gobierno de Bolivia se encuentra en el deber de dictar medidas enérgicas que la gravedad de la situación, sin apartarse, no obstante, de los principios que consagra el derecho público de las naciones.

Decreto:

Articulo 1° Queda cortado todo comercio y comunicación con la República de Chile mientras dure la guerra que ha promovido a Bolivia.
Articulo 2° Los chilenos residentes en el territorio boliviano serán obligados a desocuparlo en el término de dies dias, contados desde la notificación que se les hiciere por la autoridad pública nacional, pudiendo llevar consigo sus papeles privados, su equipaje y articulos de menaje mayor.
Articulo 3° La expulsión ordenada en el artículo anterior sólo podrá ser suspendida en el término que fuera estrictamente indispensable por causa de enfermedad u otro impedimento grave, a juicio de la autoridad.
Articulo 4° Se procederá por las autoridades respectivas al embargo bélico de las propiedades muebles e inmuebles pertenecientes a los súbditos chilenos, en el territorio de la República, con excepción de los objetos designados en el articulo 2°.

Las empresas mineras pertenecientes a chilenos o en las que hubiere accionistas de esa nacionalidad podrán continuar su giro, a cargo de un administrador nombrado por la autoridad o con la intervención de un representante del fisco, según creyera aquélla más conveniente.
Articulo 5° Los productos netos de las empresas mineras perteneciente a chilenos o a las acciones correspondientes a los mismos, serán empozados en el tesoro nacional.
Articulo 6° El embargo mandado por este Decreto se convertirá en consfiscación definitiva, siempre que el género de las hostilidades que ejerzan las fuerzas chilenas requieran una retaliación enérgica de parte de Bolivia.

Articulo 7° Se desconoce toda transferencia de intereses chilenos, hecha con posterioridad al 8 de noviembre último, en cuya fecha el Gobierno chileno declaró nulo el tratado de 1874, debiendo considerarse como simulado todo contrato que se hubiere pactado a este respecto.

El ministro de Gobierno y Relaciones Exteriores cuidará de la publicación y ejecución de este Decreto.

Fuente: Historia de Las Fronteras de Chile, page 65-66

As you can read, the text doesn't include the sentence: "La Républica de Bolivia declara la guerra a Chile", in fact, the decree establish than its instructions are only valid until the state-of-war persist between Bolivia and Chile, and this measures can be reverted or become permanent in function to the escalation of the hostilities, clearly initiated by the Chilean Republic. This decree cannot be interpretated as a "war declaration", that is the Chilean version of the fact since the war and here in Misplaced Pages we have the duty to show the fact as they really was, not sustain a lie initiated more than a hundred years ago. Greetings. --Cloudaoc (talk) 15:39, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

I will reply with four points:

1. Misplaced Pages has a strict policy regarding Primary Source (Read WP:PRIMARY). All of you can read it, so I won't post it here. I am using all of my primary sources correctly, quoting them directly word-by-word. An excerpt from the policy: "A primary source may only be used on Misplaced Pages to make straightforward, descriptive statements that any educated person, with access to the source but without specialist knowledge, will be able to verify are supported by the source. For example, an article about a novel may cite passages to describe the plot, but any interpretation needs a secondary source." At no point am I "interpreting" the primary sources. Therefore, Alex and Keysanger, I will not remove any of these sources from the list.
2. Alex, please read the dates. Daza's decree was on March 1st of 1879 (01/05/1879). The base argument is that Bolivia declared war on Chile on March 1st. However, several of Keysanger's sources provide different dates, or no dates at all. If Keysanger wants to prove that March 1st is when Daza declared war, it's only logical that his sources explicitly state: "On March 1st, Daza/Bolivia declared war." If they don't, then they are not favoring his position at all. Otherwise Keysanger must come up with a different proposal of when Bolivia declared war.
3. Sater is not consistent with Keysanger. He clearly states that the March 1st decree was "apparently not a declaration of war". That's exactly the same thing my sources state. Did Bolivia declare war on a later date? Possibly, I am not contesting that possibility.
4. My argument is that nothing important (no declaration of war) happened on March 1st. My sources, ix to xv, all mention the Chilean declaration of war of April 5, 1879. These sources completely ignore the March 1st date, and instead focus on other causes for the start of war. Hence, they cannot be discarded.--MarshalN20 | 15:48, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

In the end, what does this all end up in? Nothing. I have already made a proposal paragraph, but Keysanger ignores it. Instead of trying to reach consensus, he is still trying to fight against my sources. He still wants to impose his POV on the article.--MarshalN20 | 15:48, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Analyzing Daza's March 1st declaration of war sources of Keysanger

Extended content

N William F. Sater in "Andean Tragedy", states: Clearly states that March 1st was "apparently not a declaration of war". N "Chile and the War of the Pacific"‎ by William F. Sater: "Andean Tragedy" is his most recent work. Unless "Chile and War of the Pacific" has anything relevant that "Andean Tragedy" doesn't have, this source is useless. N William Jefferson Dennis "Documentary History of the Tacna-Arica dispute, University of Iowa studies in the social sciences, Vol. 8": Bolivian territory had been invaded by Chile, therefore Bolivia was in a state of war. Being in a state of war does not equal "declaring war". For example, the USA didn't declare war on Vietnam, and yet the Vietnamese were in a state of war. N "Latin America's Wars: The age of the caudillo, 1791-1899" By Robert L. Scheina: March 18? Right month, wrong day. Y "Wars and Peace Treaties, 1816-1991", By Erik Goldstein, page 182: As result of this action Bolivia declared war on Chile (1.March) N "The history of Chile" By John Lawrence Rector: When did Bolivia declare war? No date. N onwar.com: Again, no date. Y country-data.com: Bolivia, in alliance with Peru, declared war on Chile on March 1', ... N andrewclem.com: Right month, no day. Y globalsecurity.com: Bolivia, in alliance with Peru, declared war on Chile on March 1 N Encarta: No date N "The geopolitics of security in the Americas: hemispheric denial from Monroe ..." by Martin Sicker: February 14? This source is completely off-date. N "A history of Chile‎" - Page 326, by Luis Galdames, Isaac Joslin Cox - History - 1941 - 565 pages: No date. N "The Bolivia-Chile-Peru dispute in the Atacama Desert" by Ronald Bruce St. John, Clive H. Schofield: March 14? Right month, wrong day. N "The Ten Cents War", Bruce W. Farcau, Praeger Publishers, 2000, page 42: Nothing on the March 1st decree. Y"Kleine Geschichte Lateinamerikas", by Hans-Joachim König, Philipp Reclam, Stuttgart, 2009, ISBN 978-3-315-017062-5, page 479: Chilenische Einheiten besetzten die bolivianischen Hafenstadt Antofagasta, in der nur 5% der Bevölkerung bolivianisch waren. Daraufhin erklärte Bolivian am 1. März 1879 den Krieg an. YJosé Antonio Lavalle, "Mi mision en Chile en 1879", Edición, prólogo y notas por Félix Denegri Luna , Lima, Peru, 1979, Instituto de Estudios Histórico-Marítimos del Perú. (José Antonio Lavalle was the Peruvian envoy to Chile to mediate during the crisis and Félix Denegri Luna was a well known Peruvian historian ) In the Prolog to the book of the Peruvian envoy to Chile to "mediate" during the crisis, Félix Denegri Luna explains in aprox. 65 pages the situation of the three countries. He wrote in: page XLIII El 1° de marzo Bolivia entró en guerra con Chile page LVIII La declaración esta fechada en La Paz el 1° de Marzo. page LXII Lavalle se indignó cuando se enteró que Daza había declarado la guerra a Chile. La noticia llegada a Santiago dos semanas después ... The text of envoy Lavalle is a primary source, but allow me a transgression of this important rule of Misplaced Pages only in order to get a vivid view of the situation at that time. Lavalle says in page 84: En la mañana del 18 recibí una carta verbal* del señor ministro Fierro pidiéndome que le viese a las 12 del día siguiente, para tener una conferencia relativa al objeto de mi mision, y pocos momentos después llegó a mis manos un suplemento del "Diario Oficial", en el que se anunciaba que el ministro de relaciones exteriores había recibido desde Tacna, por medio de correos, y desde Caldera por el telegráfo, el decreto expedido por el presidente de Bolivia en 1° del mes de marzo, que seguía, en el cual establecíase por parte de esa nación el "casus belli" con Chile, con todos sus efectos y consequencias NJorge Basadre, "Historia de la Republica, La guerra con Chile": Nothing on the March 1st decree.

Keysanger really needs to get his position straight. Obviously, this is a controversial subject; but it gets even more confusing when the correct dates are not attributed. If he wants to claim that Daza's March 1st decree was a declaration of war, then he must provide sources that demonstrate that on March 1st Daza declared war. From my analysis, only 5 of his sources provide this detail.--MarshalN20 | 15:48, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Globalsecurity.com, and country-data.com cannot be considered as a reliable sources, because both pages only repeat the content of other sources, without checking its reliability; in fact, both websites don't cite any source at all. Greetings.--Cloudaoc (talk) 18:12, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Globalsecurity.com is reliable. It's not the "most reliable" source available (there are better...such as the historians), but it should not be discarded. Regarding Country-data.com, it also seems reliable since, according to the foreword , the information was "prepared by the Federal Research Division of the Library of Congress." The only problem with both is that they don't really cite their sources. They only provide a bibliography, which is just a general list of books which influenced their work...but we don't know which exact part of the book they used. Still, that only confirms that these are not the best of sources, but they are reliable.--MarshalN20 | 18:46, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

The globalsecurity.com and country-data.com are both the same source i.e. word for word say the same thing so one of them at least must be removed from the list. Alex Harvey (talk) 01:38, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Marshal et al., Keysanger has written above There were 2 Bolivian declarations, the first one was on 1st March and the second on 14th or 18th March 1879. Why? The 14th March is the date of the arrival to Lima and 18th March the date of the arrival to Santiago? We don't know. So even if the 1st March was less than a formal declaration of war historians seem to agree that there was a formal declaration on 14th or 18th. It's not obvious to me why there would be confusion but there obviously is. For the most part I think Keysanger's analysis of the sources presented so far is fair and accurate. On primary sources, it is true that we are allowed to use them to some extent but the issue at hand here is what the reliable secondary sources say. When determining appropriate weight we only care about the weight as found in reliable secondary sources. Alex Harvey (talk) 01:48, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Keysanger's sources must be divided according to the dates. That way we will be able to see which historians favor each date. Also, Keysanger's explanation about the "date of arrival to Lima" is his own opinion on the subject (unless he provides a source which explains this matter). His analysis is anything but fair or accurate. All of my alleged "primary sources", are also secondary sources (with the exception being the US Ambassador). Caivano and Soldan, for example, are historians and in their books (which you can access through the links I provided in my list) they reference their material with primary sources. Moreover, their information is supported by both Sater and Lizon (both of them explain that the March 1 decree was not a declaration of war).--MarshalN20 | 02:27, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Something to note, regarding the dates, is that by this point the telegraph existed. Peru and Chile had telegraph lines which connected each other, hence why Peru declared casus foederis of the Alliance a mere day after Chile declared war. It's funny how Keysanger tries to claim that it would take 4 days for information from Lima to reach Santiago. When important events, such as war, were declared, the South American governments were notified rather quickly. The "Chasqui" were from the days of the Inca Empire.--MarshalN20 | 03:06, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

As Keysanger said, we are not supposed to do original research so he's right that it's not his job to explain why there are various dates in the sources for a BDoW. As I said at my talk page if the March 1 decree was not a BDoW then that's fine, but the article needs to add something like, "However, on 14th or 18th March, Daza made a formal declaration of war." It can't present a version of history stating that Chile was the first declare war if in fact a majority of historians believe Chile's April 5 declaration was a reciprocation of an earlier Bolivian declaration of war. Alex Harvey (talk) 03:48, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

It doesn't make sense to "study" Daza's article. It is original research. For example, what says the article 1. of Daza's decree?:

Articulo 1° Queda cortado todo comercio y comunicación con la República de Chile mientras dure la guerra que ha promovido a Bolivia.

Which war did the decree mean?. Either Chile had declared the war or Bolivia declared the war. Chile still didn't declare the war. Chile did it on 5. April after Peru refused to declare neutrality. Do we want to discuss that?. Not me. I refuse to discuss about primary sources. This is the task of historians not of WP editors.

Moreover, if you don't like the first Bolivian declaration of war then use the second one. Don't try to be more intelligent or to know more about the war that Sater, Sheina, Farcau, Besadre and Denegri Luna!.

I think the true intention behind the currrent wording of the article is given by Cloudac:

This decree cannot be interpretated as a "war declaration", that is the Chilean version of the fact since the war and here in Misplaced Pages we have the duty to show the fact as they really was, not sustain a lie initiated more than a hundred years ago.

They want to re-interpret a fact and and to show the fact as they really was and to terminate with the lie of Sater, Sheina, Farcau, Besadre and Denegri Luna.

Best regards, --Keysanger (what?) 11:57, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

So what happened on March 14/18? Sater asserts that Bolivia made a formal declaration of war. Has the text of this declaration of war been preserved? Alex Harvey (talk) 13:05, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Alex, one of Keysanger's sources explains what happened on March 18. The one by Felix Denegri Luna, using a direct quote from Lavalle (the Peruvian diplomat in Santiago during this time): (In Spanish) En la mañana del 18 recibí una carta verbal* del señor ministro Fierro pidiéndome que le viese a las 12 del día siguiente, para tener una conferencia relativa al objeto de mi mision, y pocos momentos después llegó a mis manos un suplemento del "Diario Oficial", en el que se anunciaba que el ministro de relaciones exteriores había recibido desde Tacna, por medio de correos, y desde Caldera por el telegráfo, el decreto expedido por el presidente de Bolivia en 1° del mes de marzo, que seguía, en el cual establecíase por parte de esa nación el "casus belli" con Chile, con todos sus efectos y consequencias.

Translation into English: "In the morning of the 18th, I received a verbal letter from minister Fierro asking me to see him at 12:00 the next day, in order to have a conference relating the objective of my mission, and a few moments later came to my hands a supplement of the "Diario Oficial" , in which it was announced that the Minister of Foreign Relations had received from Tacna, through correspondence, and from Caldera through telegraph, the decree made by Bolivia's president on March 1st, in which it established from that nation the "casus beli" with Chile, with all its effects and consequences."

Alex, you ask "What happened on March 14/18?" The answer, according to Keysanger's source, is that Chile became aware of the March 1st decree. Only Sater claims there was a "formal declaration", while Scheina claims that "on March 18 Bolivia declared war and confiscated all Chilean property." The problem is that Bolivia confiscated Chilean property on March 1st, so is Scheina also refering to the March 1st decree? Now do you fully understand why the dates are so important?--MarshalN20 | 15:26, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

It's hard to believe that Sater and others would agree with this analysis and still maintain that Bolivia formally declared war on 18th March. Keysanger? Alex Harvey (talk) 07:30, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Please allow me to add that my USA ambassador primary source (Richard Gibbs), also mentions how the March 1st decree was published on March 18 (South Pacific Times). Sater is the only historian I know who claims that a "formal" declaration of war took place on March 18, so I don't see who are the "others"? Scheina states that "on March 18 Bolivia declared war and confiscated all Chilean property in Bolivia," but the only mention of property confiscation took place in the March 1st decree. Jorge Basadre uses the exact wording as Lavalle, attributing March 18 as the date the Daza's decree arrived in Chile through mail and telegraph. At no point does Basadre claim that Bolivia declared war on March 18. Therefore, at most only Sater and Scheina talk about war on the 18th.--MarshalN20 | 14:48, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

It is not only hard to believe that MarshalN20 knows more about the war then Profesor W. F. Sater. His efforts are useless. I cite Misplaced Pages:No original research:

This page in a nutshell: Misplaced Pages does not publish original thought: all material in Misplaced Pages must be attributable to a reliable, published source. Articles may not contain any new analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position not clearly advanced by the sources.

MarshallN20's divagations not only are a new analisys or synthesis of published materials, they contradict them. Best regards, --Keysanger (what?) 15:19, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

I am not placing myself on a position where "I know more than Sater". However, you seem to think that his word is final and that everyone should bow down to him. So far, Sater has: (1) Agreed that the March 1st decree was not a declaration of war and (2) Is the only historian who claims that Bolivia "formally declared war" on March 18.

1. What other historians aside from Sater and Scheina attribute a declaration of war to March 18?
2. I am using your own source (from Felix Denegri Luna). At all times I use direct quotes from the primary sources. No "analysis" or "synthesis". All the primary sources clearly explain that, on March 18, the March 1st decree was published in Santiago.

Oh, and you still haven't answered Alex's question as to what, according to you, happened on March 18. Stop trying to evade the central argument.--MarshalN20 | 15:33, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Marshal in that we need to know more about March 18 than we seem to so far in order to write the article properly. From the sources I've seen so far, a justified wording would be, "According to W.F. Sater, Bolivia made a formal declaration of war on March 18". If you want the article to state as a fact that Bolivia formally declared war on March 18 then we need more evidence. Alex Harvey (talk) 08:30, 31 July 2011 (UTC) I've read Keysanger's sources again and I see the picture clearer. I think he is right and that without further evidence something along the lines of his wording should go in. Alex Harvey (talk) 16:32, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

"Bolivia declared war...but we are not really sure when" is by no means a clear solution to this controversial topic. The March 1 decree is the most discussed (majority) in both sides of the argument; it's also the one which the Chilean government attributes as a declaration of war. The March 14/18 dates are minority views, with no documented evidence of a declaration of war; the only explanation is provided by Lavalle and Basadre, which claim this is when the March 1 decree is published in Chile. That's what is known from these sources and that's what should be placed in the article to achieve the NPOV.--MarshalN20 | 17:28, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Marshal, the reason I changed my view is that I carefully re-read Keysanger's sources. They include: (i) Sater "Two weeks after the Chilean occupation of Antofagasta, he declared that Chile had imposed "a state of war" on Bolivia. Apparently this decree did not constitute a formal declaration of belligerence, which he announced on 18 March"; (iii) William Jefferson Dennis "On March 14 Bolivia advised representatives of foreign powers that a state of war existed with Chile"; (iv) Robert L. Scheina "On March 18 Bolivia declared war and confiscated all Chilean property in Bolivia and under the terms of a secret treaty ..."; (vii) Martin Sicker "and Bolivia declared war on 14 February 1879" ('February' is probably a typo?); (xiv) Ronald Bruce St. John et al "Once Bolivia declared war on March 14 ..."; (xv) Bruce W. Farcau "... the formal declaration would not be forthcomming until 14 March." (xviii) Jorge Besadre, "El dí­a 18 de marzo se abrió un nuevo perí­odo de la misión Lavalle. Ese dí­a fue recibido en Santiago, desde Tacna por correo y desde Caldera por telégrafo el decreto expedido por el Presidente Daza y notificado al cuerpo diplomático el 14 de marzo estableciendo el casus belli con Chile con todos sus efectos y consecuencias, junto con otros decretos de ruptura de relaciones mientras durara la guerra y de expulsión y confiscación de bienes chilenos en Bolivia." It seems to me that these sources are saying not just that Chile became aware of the March 1 decree on March 14, but that on this day Bolivia made further decrees, and also advised foreign powers that a state of war now existed. That seems to be the mainstream view. Moreover, you can't claim that sources which assert that Bolivia declared war but don't mention a date (e.g. Encarta) don't support Keysanger's position, because they do. What appears to be a minority view is the view that Bolivia never declared war at all. Without any support for this view from non Bolivian sources I believe this should be treated as a minority view. Alex Harvey (talk) 03:56, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the explanation. However, I would like to make note of two things: (1) The term "state of war existed" does not equal a Bolivian declaration of war. According to Bolivia, Chile imposed a state of war upon them when they invaded their territory. That's what they advised to foreign representatives, according to the sources. (2) Lutz, Mansfield, Allcock, and Keen are just a few of the Western historians which disregard any March date as relevant to the course of events; how should we deal with these sources which attribute Chile as the primary aggressor and not Bolivia? Best of wishes.--MarshalN20 | 04:15, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Proposal

We have the same problem like editors of the death of Salvador Allende, John Kennedy, Osama Bin Laden, etc. There is little or no evidence about the circumtances of their death but all serious historians say they are death. There is no reason to say, "John Kennedy is probably alive because we don't know how many snipers killed him". In the same way, there is no reason to write "Author XYZ says Kennedy is death". He is death, all authors say it, they differ in the circumtances of his death.

So lets us say what we know, and abstain to make a digression.

I propound for:

"Lede":

In the middle of March Daza declared war and Chile soon learned that Peru and Bolivia had a secret alliance. These revelations resulted in a Chilean declaration of war on Peru and Bolivia after Peru refused to declare neutrality.

for "Crisis":

On February 27 Bolivian legislature issued an autorization for a declaration of war. On March 1, 1879, Daza issued a decree which prohibited all commerce and communications with Chile "while the state-of-war provoked upon Bolivia lasts", provided Chileans ten days to leave Bolivian territory, unless gravely ill or handicapped, with their personal belongings and documentation, embargoed Chilean furniture, real property, and mining produce, allowed Chilean mining companies to continue operating under a government-appointed administrator, and provided all embargoes as temporary "unless the hostilities exercised by Chilean forces requires an energetic retalition from Bolivia". Middle of March Daza issued a formal declaration of war. Bolivia then called on Peru to activate their alliance treaty as they felt that the Chilean occupation constituted a casus foederis.

…

After the Bolivian declaration of war was known in Santiago*(ref1), Peru's envoy Lavalle recognized the existence of the secret treaty and the Chilean government asked Peru for neutrality. As the Peruvian government responded that Lima intended to honor its commitments to Bolivia, Chile declared the war to Peru and Bolivia on 5. April 1879

• (ref1)There are discrepancies between historians about the date of the declaration of war.

Best regrads, --Keysanger (what?) 13:39, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

I completely disagree with your proposal. You're trying to place this subject on the same level of a conspiracy theory or myth, and that is completely erroneous. Both you and I have provided several sources which discuss the matter and provide their explanations for the events which took place at this time. What has been demonstrated from these sources is that no consensus exists among historians as to whether Bolivia declared war on March 1 or not, and that a few historians (minority per Undue Weight) attribute war to the 14th or 18th. The purpose of Misplaced Pages is to present all points of view in order to achieve NPOV.

• Lede (lead): It's controversial (split opinion) that Bolivia declared war on Chile on March 1st, which is what the Chilean government claimed. Therefore, it should not be included in the lead section. This goes along the same lines of the "Offensive/Defensive issue". Professional opinion is split, so it's best to avoid it in the lead.
• Crisis: This is the section where all material from the different historians should be presented.

What we know so far:

1. The majority of historians from both our source lists discuss the March 1st date (debate in favor or against);
2. Sater is the only one attributing formal BDoW on March 18, though Scheina also attributes the date to war;
3. Basadre (historian) and Lavalle (sourced from Felix Denegri Luna) explain that what happened on March 18 was that Daza's March 1st decree was published in Chile;
4. St. John and Sicker propose a March 14 date. This one has the least weight.

Based on these sources, I propose the following paragraph for the Crisis section:

Daza's decree is a controversial subject in the history of the conflict. Chile interpreted the decree as a declaration of war, a decision whose legitimacy has faced considerable debate in the historical community. Those in favor of Chile's interpretation, including Erick Goldstein and Hans-Joachim König, explain that decree was a war declaration retaliating Chile's invasion of Bolivian territory. This group suggests that Bolivia's declaration of war tried to prevent Chile from receiving further military equipment, and, according to Jorge Basadre, also tried to prevent Peru's diplomatic mediation from succeeding. Those against Chile's interpretation, including Tommaso Caivano and William F. Sater, explain that the decree was nothing more than a security measure given Chile's military invasion. This group suggests that Chile, in need of a justification for its occupation of Bolivia, purposely distorted Daza's decree. Nonetheless, some historians provide different perspectives as to when Bolivia possibly declared war. According to Bruce Farcau, Bolivia's legislature authorized a formal declaration of war on February 27. Farcau, along with Bruce St. John and Martin Sicker, claim that Bolivia then declared war on March 14. According to William Sater and Robert Scheina, Bolivia's declaration of war took place on March 18, but José Antonio de Lavalle (Peruvian senior diplomat and envoy to Chile) writes in his diary that March 18 is the date when Daza's March 1 decree was made public in Chile; a story corroborated by historian Jorge Basadre.

This proposal includes all points of view in the discussion, directly addresses the issue, and lets the reader understand the controversial nature of the situation. No "Bolivia declared war and that's that" kind of idea which Keysanger seems to support.--MarshalN20 | 16:59, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Besides a lot of original research (like "Chile interpreted…", "This group suggests…", " Those against Chile's interpretation…") primary sources (Tommaso Caivano, José Antonio de Lavalle, Mariano Felipe Paz Soldán), non-sense ( William F. Sater is cited as "the decree was nothing more than a security measure given Chile's military invasion". I don't know where did you get such idea.), fragmentary cites in one sentence ("According to Bruce Farcau, Bolivia's legislature authorized a formal declaration of war on February 27.") etc, etc, etc, the most shattering of your proposal is the undue weight.

If there is one thing we have learnt during the discussion is that the issue of the Bolivian declaration of war is a minor issue under the historians. All references, with the exception of two Bolivians and one Peruvian historian, wrote at most 1 sentence about the date of the Bolivian declaration of war. No more. It is a uninteresting theme for the history. All of them consider the Bdow as a fact. For example Basadre, a Peruvian historian, reflects on the causes, and consequenses of the Bdow but not about the date.

You want to write a botch of 1625 words with 18 references and suddenly nothing in the lede.

Moreover, your proposal eludes the most important thing almost all historians say: there was a Bolivian declaration of war.

Alex, can you make a proposal?. Best regards, --Keysanger (what?) 19:57, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

I do not agree with Bolivia having declared war on March 1st, which is discussed by historians in both sides. However, considering Alex wants to take into account the other sources which say Bolivia did declare war but provide no date, there is little else to be done from my part regarding this matter.

That being said, 28 sources from "western" historians declare that the War of the Pacific began with the Chilean invasion of Bolivian territory. This took place on February of 1879. Currently, the article only has the date of "1879" as the start of the war. Unless anyone wishes to challenge this point, the article should be edited accordingly. Here are the sources:

In other words, Chile started the War of the Pacific. Best regards.--MarshalN20 | 20:07, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the sources MarshallN20, let us continue to discuss about the Bolivian declaration of war. Best regards, --Keysanger (what?) 20:39, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

This is part of the Bolivian declaration of war discussion. Considering most historians attribute Chile's invasion of Antofagasta as the start of the war of the Pacific, and Bolivia's "declaration of war" as a response to Chile's invasion, then there exists an order of how things should be presented in the lead and how they should be changed within the article. Currently, the article is written in such a way where the start of the war is attributed to the Chilean declaration of war on April 5; which should be fixed based on the information provided by 28 reliable sources. Best of wishes.--MarshalN20 | 21:36, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Nobody doubts that Chile took the initiative of the military operations. But we are discussing now about the diplomatic side of the conflict, in this concrete case the Bolivian declaration of war. Let us finish that question. --Keysanger (what?) 21:45, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

It's not about the initiative of the military operations. The sources explicit state that Chile started the war'. Regardless of the Chilean or Bolivian DoWs, the War of the Pacific began on February 14, 1879, when Chile invaded Antofagasta. In either case, Chile is the primary aggressor. Best of wishes.--MarshalN20 | 21:58, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Conclusions: Bolivia DoW

It seems most sources agree that Bolivia declared war in March. The problem is that, for every single date, a contrasting explanation is provided:

• March 1: One side argues pro-war, the other side argues that Chile, with all intents and purposes, claimed it was a DoW (when it wasn't).
• March 14: Some historians argue pro-war, but others explain that what happened here was Bolivia making a "War circular". Not sure if that's the correct English translation, but it's definition is that of telling foreign powers a state of war exists between two nations. In Bolivia's case, they told Europeans and the US that war existed between Bolivia and Chile. However, this is not a declaration of war, much less a "formal" one.
• March 18: Some historians argue pro-war, but Basadre/Lavalle explain that what happened on this date was that the March 1st decree was published on Santiago (Chile).

I am willing to write another consensus proposal based on these points, but I would like to know (from Keysanger mainly) whether he agrees or disagrees with these points. Also, any suggestions as to how this may be included are welcome.--MarshalN20 | 13:10, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

I tend to agree with Keysanger throughout here. There is a minor inconsistency on the dates in the sources but this likely follows from disinterest than true disagreement. I feel that a simple narrative like Keysanger's is appropriate and discussion of various confusions could probably occur in a footnote. The important point is that nearly all sources make a simple statement of a simple fact that Bolivia declared war. If we want to simply avoid the issue we could also just say nothing about "Bolivia declared war" and simply say that on March 14 Bolivia announced that a state of war existed between herself & Chile. I think what is most important here is that we don't manufacture a controversy in the mind of the reader that may not really exist. Alex Harvey (talk) 01:15, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

The March 14 date is the only one which is undisputed, so I agree with your proposal. In the footnote we can discuss the other dates. In this case, what should we do about the mention for Daza's March 1 decree?--MarshalN20 | 02:40, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Template Disputed-section

For the "repase"-Theory are shown two references. The first one is a unknown page (HTTP 404) and the second one is a primary source of Andres Caceres and as such non-available for Misplaced Pages. Moreover, the section dont mention the given promise of not to fight against the Chilean government. --Keysanger (what?) 08:40, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

The information provided by Caceres is backed up by secondary sources, therefore his primary account stands. Added that the "Repaso" is not a theory, but a fact.--MarshalN20 | 19:09, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Please, write the complete paragraph that you mean support your sentences and delete the tag only when the discussion is finished. Best regards, --Keysanger (what?) 22:33, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

I will not do the work for you. I have done enough by providing the sources and page number. If you wish to improve the citations, feel free to do so on your own.--MarshalN20 | 18:51, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

You HAVE to do the work. And through reliable sources and not a lot of biased "testimonies". Best Regards, Keysanger (what?) 19:02, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

No, all that is required of me is to provide the source and page in which you can find the information. Anything else you want to do is up to you. I will not do the work for you.--MarshalN20 | 19:10, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

My two cents

I have noticed this discussion, and thought of some things about it.

First of all, the context. Bolivia and Peru had wrote a treaty of mutual defense, that's a fact. With "defense" understood in its technical meaning: if a third country would declare war to any of the countries in the treaty, the others would join against it. There are more facts, such as that the treaty was secret, that Chile was not invited to join it (Argentina was, but did not join it). To say that this means that the treaty was actually for Bolivia and Chile to unite against Chile is an opinion; but to say that is opinion was held by most Chileans and encouraged the hostilities in Chile is a fact (as it is an opinion attributed to those holding it). More or less, that's the context, the way things took place. The NPOV is broken if we try to settle who was fighting the "Just War". In any case, let's remember that the aggresor is not who declares war first, but who begins the hostilities first, and military hostilities may begin without a declaration of war (and even worse, war may be "declared" when it's already taking place).

Second, there's a point we should consider about some of the sources cited earlier: many authors say things in "summary style", depending on the scope of the book (a book specifically about the War of the Pacific is a better source than a book about latin american history as a whole). An author that considers the twisted scenario, checks the information, and concludes "the aggresor was X because..." (whenever X is Chile, Peru or Bolivia) is one thing, an author making a trivial mention about the beginng of the war is another. We should dismiss authors making trivial passing-by mentions, and work with those who acknowledge the existence of this dispute and explains their reasons for endorsing one or other side. Or, better yet, an authors that acknowledges the dispute and stands aside it, explaining something like "Chilean authors X and Y say (A), Peruvian author Z says (B), and Bolivian author XY considers (C)". Consider that we are not talking about history anymore, but about historiography.

Finally, on a more technical issue, we do not use many different tags in an article if they are all for basically the same problem, such as POV and UNDUE, we use only the most specific one. Even more: if the problem is not at the whole article, but just at a specific sentence or sentences, then we should remove the tag from the top of the article and use {{Undue-inline}} instead. Cambalachero (talk) 02:49, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

1. "Wars and Peace Treaties, 1816-1991", By Erik Goldstein, page 182: As result of this action Bolivia declared war on Chile (1.March)
2. ' country-data.com: Bolivia, in alliance with Peru, declared war on Chile on March 1, ...
3. andrewclem.com: ... , but Bolivia declared war on Chile and made known its “secret” alliance with Peru in March, ...
4. globalsecurity.com: Bolivia, in alliance with Peru, declared war on Chile on March 1,...
5. Ramiro Prudencio Lizon (Historian and Diplomat) : "In order for Chile to be able to advance further north an official war declaration was necessary. And it wasn't this country but rather Bolivia the one who sent an internal decree which was afterwards interpreted as a true declaration of war. Obviously, Daza had no interest in declaring war, because he knew that Bolivia was not in conditions to affront a campaign against a country much superior in belligerent resources and which counted with a powerful navy."
6. Mariano Felipe Paz Soldán, "Narracion Historica de la Guerra de Chile contra el Peru y Bolivia". On Page 80 he presents the Bolivian March 1st declaration and explains its nature (at no point describing it as a declaration of war). On Page 86 makes first mention of a declaration of war, this coming from Chile to both Peru and Bolivia. Text from Page 86 (): "War having been declared by Chile, it needed to justify its conduct upon the neutral nations and, at a loss of good reasons founded in law and corroborated by deeds, opted for falsity, presenting a series of situations under a distortion of reality, and others completely false. said among other things that Peru did not gesture Bolivia in time to lead it towards a good path and procede with fewer recklesness and violence in its determinations."
7. Atilio Sivirichi, "Historia del Perú" (1932), page 193: " was skilfully interpreted by the Chilean government as a declaration of war and as a justification for its occupation of the ."
8. Tommaso Caivano, "Historia de la guerra de América entre Chile, Perú y Bolivia", pages 61-62 (): ", as can be clearly read within it, does not do anything more than dictate a few measures relative to true the state of war in which Bolivia and Chile found themselves after the invasion of by , and, like it textually and carefully states, "while this state of war imposed by Chile upon Bolivia", was interpreted by Chile in an extremely original manner."
9. Valentín Abecia Baldivieso, "The History of Bolivia in International Relations. Vol 2.," page 73: "But in reality no such declaration of war took place. The decree (Hilarión Daza's decree) to which this characteristic is attributed only alludes that "Chile has indeed invaded the national territory", stipulating that "all commerce and communication with the Republic of Chile is cut for the duration of the war that has promoted upon Bolivia." He later states that Chileans should vacate the country given deadlines in cases of emergency and taking action on property belonging to them. Therefore, it is not correct to attribute that Decree the characteristics of a declaration of war, because under the international law of the time, it was not. The steps taken were for security because Chile had taken Antofagasta. On April 3 the declaration of war by the Chilean Congress was approved, and by the 5th it became known throughout the press."
10. Guillermo Cortés Lutz, "La Guerra del Pacífico: Graves Errores en la Enseñanza de la Historia y su Distorsión en los Sistemas Educativos en Chile, Perú y Bolivia" : "The key moment to give the "go" on war starts in the day planned for the auction, Chilean troops, at the command of Colonel Emilio Sotomayor, occupy Antofagasta. Later comes the negative of Peru to maintain its impartiality, Manuel Prado, arguments that he has been tied by a secret pact, and with this Chile declares war on Peru and Bolivia on April 5, 1879, without ignoring the invasion manu militari, was the start of the war."
11. William Spence Robertson, "History of the Latin-American Nations" .
    • Page 324: "On February 14, 1879, which was the date set by Bolivia for the sale of the company's property to ensure the payment of the taxes, Chilean soldiers took possession of Antofagasta. Two weeks later Bolivia announced that in consequence a state of war existed between her and Chile. After the Peruvian government had declined to proclaim its neutrality in the struggle, Chile declared war upon Bolivia and Peru. The conflict which ensued has been designated by South Americans as the War of the Pacific."
    • Page 345: "But the efforts of Peruvian diplomats were fruitless. After Peru had declined to proclaim her neutrality, the Chilean government--which claimed to have ben just informed of the secret treaty of alliance between Bolivia and Peru -- declared war upon the allies on April 5, 1879.
12. General Directory of Statistics, Chile
    • Page 3: "The old enemity of Peru and the perfidious machinations of its government being thus discovered, war was inevitable, and was declared by Chile on the 4th. of April 1879."
    • Page 6: "The present war which Chile makes against Peru and Bolivia."
13. Edward D. Mansfield and Jack L. Snyder, "Electing to Fight: Why Emerging Democracies Go to War" , Page 202: "Chile's role as initiator of the War of the Pacific against Peru and Bolivia in 1879, fought over nitrate deposits, demonstrates the dangers of coalition politics in weakly institutionalized states undergoing an incomplete democratic transition."
14. John B. Allcock, "Border and Territorial Disputes" , page 574: "After Bolivia had broken an agreement signed with Chile at Sucre in 1874 by placing fresh taxes on Chilean firms already exploiting nitrates in the common zone, a Chilean expeditionary force in February 1879 took possession of Antofagasta and Mejillones (on the coast) and Caracoles (inland). Chile called on Peru to proclaim its neutrality in the conflict, and, when the latter refused, declared war on both."
15. Benjamin Keen and Keith Haynes, "A History of Latin America" , page 256: "In February 1879, despite Chilean warnings that expropriation of Chilean enterprises would void the treaty of 1874, the Bolivian government ordered the confiscation carried out. On February 14, the day set for the seizure and sale of the Chilean properties, Chilean troops occupied the port of Antofagasta, encountering no resistance, and proceeded to extend Chilean control over the whole province. Totally unprepared for war, Peru made a vain effort to mediate between Chile and Bolivia. Chile, however, having learned of the secret Peruvian-Bolivian alliance, charged Peru with intolerable duplicity and declared war on both Peru and Bolivia on April 5, 1879."
16. Ramiro Prudencio Lizon (Historian and Diplomat) : "In order for Chile to be able to advance further north an official war declaration was necessary. And it wasn't this country but rather Bolivia the one who sent an internal decree which was afterwards interpreted as a true declaration of war. Obviously, Daza had no interest in declaring war, because he knew that Bolivia was not in conditions to affront a campaign against a country much superior in belligerent resources and which counted with a powerful navy."
17. Richard Gibbs, USA Envoy Extraordinary and Minister Plenipotentiary, "Message from the President of the United States" , pages 198-199 (March 12, 1879): "Up to the present, I have no information of a formal declaration of war having been made either by Chili or Bolivia. Chili has, by force of arms through her vessels of war, taken posession of the coast of Bolivia and holds the whole coast, establishing marine, military, and civil government. The only official action taken by Bolivia is a proclamation by President Daza, which is not a declaration of war. I inclose a copy of it in Spanish, taken from a Lima paper, and a translation from the South Pacific Times, of Callao."
18. William F. Sater, "Andean Tragedy", page 28: "Two weeks after the Chilean occupation of Antofagasta, he declared that Chile had imposed "a state of war" on Bolivia. Apparently this decree did not constitute a formal declaration of belligerence, which he announced on 18 March."
19. "Wars and Peace Treaties, 1816-1991", By Erik Goldstein, page 182: As result of this action Bolivia declared war on Chile (1.March)
20. "Kleine Geschichte Lateinamerikas", by Hans-Joachim König, Philipp Reclam, Stuttgart, 2009, ISBN 978-3-315-017062-5, page 479: Chilenische Einheiten besetzten die bolivianischen Hafenstadt Antofagasta, in der nur 5% der Bevölkerung bolivianisch waren. Daraufhin erklärte Bolivian am 1. März 1879 den Krieg an.
21. Tommaso Caivano, "Historia de la guerra de América entre Chile, Perú y Bolivia", pages 61-62 (): ", as can be clearly read within it, does not do anything more than dictate a few measures relative to true the state of war in which Bolivia and Chile found themselves after the invasion of by , and, like it textually and carefully states, "while this state of war imposed by Chile upon Bolivia", was interpreted by Chile in an extremely original manner."
22. Valentín Abecia Baldivieso, "The History of Bolivia in International Relations. Vol 2.," page 73: "But in reality no such declaration of war took place. The decree (Hilarión Daza's decree) to which this characteristic is attributed only alludes that "Chile has indeed invaded the national territory", stipulating that "all commerce and communication with the Republic of Chile is cut for the duration of the war that has promoted upon Bolivia." He later states that Chileans should vacate the country given deadlines in cases of emergency and taking action on property belonging to them. Therefore, it is not correct to attribute that Decree the characteristics of a declaration of war, because under the international law of the time, it was not. The steps taken were for security because Chile had taken Antofagasta. On April 3 the declaration of war by the Chilean Congress was approved, and by the 5th it became known throughout the press."
23. William F. Sater, "Andean Tragedy", page 28: "Two weeks after the Chilean occupation of Antofagasta, he declared that Chile had imposed "a state of war" on Bolivia. Apparently this decree did not constitute a formal declaration of belligerence, which he announced on 18 March."
24. Ramiro Prudencio Lizon (Historian and Diplomat) : "In order for Chile to be able to advance further north an official war declaration was necessary. And it wasn't this country but rather Bolivia the one who sent an internal decree which was afterwards interpreted as a true declaration of war. Obviously, Daza had no interest in declaring war, because he knew that Bolivia was not in conditions to affront a campaign against a country much superior in belligerent resources and which counted with a powerful navy."
25. Mariano Felipe Paz Soldán, "Narracion Historica de la Guerra de Chile contra el Peru y Bolivia". On Page 80 he presents the Bolivian March 1st declaration and explains its nature (at no point describing it as a declaration of war). On Page 86 makes first mention of a declaration of war, this coming from Chile to both Peru and Bolivia. Text from Page 86 (): "War having been declared by Chile, it needed to justify its conduct upon the neutral nations and, at a loss of good reasons founded in law and corroborated by deeds, opted for falsity, presenting a series of situations under a distortion of reality, and others completely false. said among other things that Peru did not gesture Bolivia in time to lead it towards a good path and procede with fewer recklesness and violence in its determinations."
26. Atilio Sivirichi, "Historia del Perú" (1932), page 193: " was skilfully interpreted by the Chilean government as a declaration of war and as a justification for its occupation of the ."
27. William F. Sater, "Andean Tragedy", page 28: "Two weeks after the Chilean occupation of Antofagasta, he declared that Chile had imposed "a state of war" on Bolivia. Apparently this decree did not constitute a formal declaration of belligerence, which he announced on 18 March."
28. "Latin America's Wars: The age of the caudillo, 1791-1899" By Robert L. Scheina, page 376: On March 18 Bolivia declared war and confiscated all Chilean property in Bolivia and under the terms of a secret treaty ..."
29. "The geopolitics of security in the Americas: hemispheric denial from Monroe ..." by Martin Sicker here: and Bolivia declared war on 14 March 1879
30. "The Bolivia-Chile-Peru dispute in the Atacama Desert" by Ronald Bruce St. John, Clive H. Schofield here: "Once Bolivia declared war on March 14 1879
31. Tommaso Caivano, "Historia de la guerra de América entre Chile, Perú y Bolivia", pages 61-62 (): ", as can be clearly read within it, does not do anything more than dictate a few measures relative to true the state of war in which Bolivia and Chile found themselves after the invasion of by , and, like it textually and carefully states, "while this state of war imposed by Chile upon Bolivia", was interpreted by Chile in an extremely original manner."
32. Atilio Sivirichi, "Historia del Perú" (1932), page 193: " was skilfully interpreted by the Chilean government as a declaration of war and as a justification for its occupation of the ."
33. "Wars and Peace Treaties, 1816-1991", By Erik Goldstein, page 182: As result of this action Bolivia declared war on Chile (1.March)
34. "Kleine Geschichte Lateinamerikas", by Hans-Joachim König, Philipp Reclam, Stuttgart, 2009, ISBN 978-3-315-017062-5, page 479: Chilenische Einheiten besetzten die bolivianischen Hafenstadt Antofagasta, in der nur 5% der Bevölkerung bolivianisch waren. Daraufhin erklärte Bolivian am 1. März 1879 den Krieg an.
35. Jorge Basadre, "Historia de la Republica, La guerra con Chile",

    Pero las pasiones excitadas no se enfriaron. El dí­a 18 de marzo se abrió un nuevo perí­odo de la misión Lavalle. Ese dí­a fue recibido en Santiago, desde Tacna por correo y desde Caldera por telégrafo el decreto expedido por el Presidente Daza y notificado al cuerpo diplomático el 14 de marzo estableciendo el casus belli con Chile con todos sus efectos y consecuencias, junto con otros decretos de ruptura de relaciones mientras durara la guerra y de expulsión y confiscación de bienes chilenos en Bolivia. Esto ocurrió a pesar de que Quiones y Doria Medina acordaron el 5 de marzo las bases para la mediación peruana. La versión chilena fue que Bolivia quiso impedir que Chile se armara. En realidad, Daza buscó la forma de malograr la misión Lavalle. Una vez más la legación peruana en La Paz había fallado porque, según el tratado secreto, un acto de esta especie debía haberse hecho previo acuerdo de las partes. Al no estar declarada la guerra entre Chile y Bolivia, Chile no podía pedir al Perú que se mantuviera neutral. Porque la había declarado Bolivia, la exigencia chilena de neutralidad peruana era inevitable. La declaración boliviana de guerra era (dice el historiador chileno Bulnes) un palo atravesado en las ruedas del carro empujado por Lavalle. La situación que se habí­a ido agravando mes a mes y semana a semana, se complicaba ahora día a dí­a, hora a hora, minuto a minuto. El Perú se veí­a envuelto con rapidez creciente en un conflicto tremendo, sin tiempo casi para presentar la acción conciliatoria propia y sin haber buscado una acción análoga de Argentina, Estados Unidos o las potencias europeas

36. Tommaso Caivano, "Historia de la guerra de América entre Chile, Perú y Bolivia", pages 61-62 (): ", as can be clearly read within it, does not do anything more than dictate a few measures relative to true the state of war in which Bolivia and Chile found themselves after the invasion of by , and, like it textually and carefully states, "while this state of war imposed by Chile upon Bolivia", was interpreted by Chile in an extremely original manner."
37. Valentín Abecia Baldivieso, "The History of Bolivia in International Relations. Vol 2.," page 73: "But in reality no such declaration of war took place. The decree (Hilarión Daza's decree) to which this characteristic is attributed only alludes that "Chile has indeed invaded the national territory", stipulating that "all commerce and communication with the Republic of Chile is cut for the duration of the war that has promoted upon Bolivia." He later states that Chileans should vacate the country given deadlines in cases of emergency and taking action on property belonging to them. Therefore, it is not correct to attribute that Decree the characteristics of a declaration of war, because under the international law of the time, it was not. The steps taken were for security because Chile had taken Antofagasta. On April 3 the declaration of war by the Chilean Congress was approved, and by the 5th it became known throughout the press."
38. William F. Sater, "Andean Tragedy", page 28: "Two weeks after the Chilean occupation of Antofagasta, he declared that Chile had imposed "a state of war" on Bolivia. Apparently this decree did not constitute a formal declaration of belligerence, which he announced on 18 March."
39. Ramiro Prudencio Lizon (Historian and Diplomat) : "In order for Chile to be able to advance further north an official war declaration was necessary. And it wasn't this country but rather Bolivia the one who sent an internal decree which was afterwards interpreted as a true declaration of war. Obviously, Daza had no interest in declaring war, because he knew that Bolivia was not in conditions to affront a campaign against a country much superior in belligerent resources and which counted with a powerful navy."
40. Mariano Felipe Paz Soldán, "Narracion Historica de la Guerra de Chile contra el Peru y Bolivia". On Page 80 he presents the Bolivian March 1st declaration and explains its nature (at no point describing it as a declaration of war). On Page 86 makes first mention of a declaration of war, this coming from Chile to both Peru and Bolivia. Text from Page 86 (): "War having been declared by Chile, it needed to justify its conduct upon the neutral nations and, at a loss of good reasons founded in law and corroborated by deeds, opted for falsity, presenting a series of situations under a distortion of reality, and others completely false. said among other things that Peru did not gesture Bolivia in time to lead it towards a good path and procede with fewer recklesness and violence in its determinations."
41. Atilio Sivirichi, "Historia del Perú" (1932), page 193: " was skilfully interpreted by the Chilean government as a declaration of war and as a justification for its occupation of the ."
42. "The Ten Cents War", Bruce W. Farcau, Praeger Publishers, 2000, page 42: News of the landings reached La Paz whithin few days, but, for reason never quite made clear, Daza withheld any proclamations for another week, allegedlly to avoid putting a damper on the Carnival celebrations then underway, but on 27 February, the Bolivian legislature issued the authorization for a declaration of war, although the formal declaration would not be forthcomming until 14 March. Further, on Page 43 B.W. Farcau states: Lavalle departed Lima on 22 February, well before the Bolivian declaration of war, but nothing irreversible was to occur for some time... and inpage 44 he continues: ...Word have now reached Santiago of the Bolivian declaration of war, and,
43. "The geopolitics of security in the Americas: hemispheric denial from Monroe ..." by Martin Sicker here: and Bolivia declared war on 14 March 1879
44. "The Bolivia-Chile-Peru dispute in the Atacama Desert" by Ronald Bruce St. John, Clive H. Schofield here: "Once Bolivia declared war on March 14 1879
45. William F. Sater, "Andean Tragedy", page 28: "Two weeks after the Chilean occupation of Antofagasta, he declared that Chile had imposed "a state of war" on Bolivia. Apparently this decree did not constitute a formal declaration of belligerence, which he announced on 18 March."
46. "Latin America's Wars: The age of the caudillo, 1791-1899" By Robert L. Scheina, page 376: On March 18 Bolivia declared war and confiscated all Chilean property in Bolivia and under the terms of a secret treaty ..."
47. José Antonio Lavalle, "Mi mision en Chile en 1879", Edición, prólogo y notas por Félix Denegri Luna , Lima, Peru, 1979, Instituto de Estudios Histórico-Marítimos del Perú. (José Antonio Lavalle was the Peruvian envoy to Chile to mediate during the crisis and Félix Denegri Luna was a well known Peruvian historian ) In the Prolog to the book of the Peruvian envoy to Chile to "mediate" during the crisis, Félix Denegri Luna explains in aprox. 65 pages the situation of the three countries. He wrote in:

    page XLIII El 1° de marzo Bolivia entró en guerra con Chile

    page LVIII La declaración esta fechada en La Paz el 1° de Marzo.

    page LXII Lavalle se indignó cuando se enteró que Daza había declarado la guerra a Chile. La noticia llegada a Santiago dos semanas después ...

    The text of envoy Lavalle is a primary source, but allow me a transgression of this important rule of Misplaced Pages only in order to get a vivid view of the situation at that time. Lavalle says in page 84:

    En la mañana del 18 recibí una carta verbal* del señor ministro Fierro pidiéndome que le viese a las 12 del día siguiente, para tener una conferencia relativa al objeto de mi mision, y pocos momentos después llegó a mis manos un suplemento del "Diario Oficial", en el que se anunciaba que el ministro de relaciones exteriores había recibido desde Tacna, por medio de correos, y desde Caldera por el telegráfo, el decreto expedido por el presidente de Bolivia en 1° del mes de marzo, que seguía, en el cual establecíase por parte de esa nación el "casus belli" con Chile, con todos sus efectos y consequencias

48. Jorge Basadre, "Historia de la Republica, La guerra con Chile",

    Pero las pasiones excitadas no se enfriaron. El dí­a 18 de marzo se abrió un nuevo perí­odo de la misión Lavalle. Ese dí­a fue recibido en Santiago, desde Tacna por correo y desde Caldera por telégrafo el decreto expedido por el Presidente Daza y notificado al cuerpo diplomático el 14 de marzo estableciendo el casus belli con Chile con todos sus efectos y consecuencias, junto con otros decretos de ruptura de relaciones mientras durara la guerra y de expulsión y confiscación de bienes chilenos en Bolivia. Esto ocurrió a pesar de que Quiones y Doria Medina acordaron el 5 de marzo las bases para la mediación peruana. La versión chilena fue que Bolivia quiso impedir que Chile se armara. En realidad, Daza buscó la forma de malograr la misión Lavalle. Una vez más la legación peruana en La Paz había fallado porque, según el tratado secreto, un acto de esta especie debía haberse hecho previo acuerdo de las partes. Al no estar declarada la guerra entre Chile y Bolivia, Chile no podía pedir al Perú que se mantuviera neutral. Porque la había declarado Bolivia, la exigencia chilena de neutralidad peruana era inevitable. La declaración boliviana de guerra era (dice el historiador chileno Bulnes) un palo atravesado en las ruedas del carro empujado por Lavalle. La situación que se habí­a ido agravando mes a mes y semana a semana, se complicaba ahora día a dí­a, hora a hora, minuto a minuto. El Perú se veí­a envuelto con rapidez creciente en un conflicto tremendo, sin tiempo casi para presentar la acción conciliatoria propia y sin haber buscado una acción análoga de Argentina, Estados Unidos o las potencias europeas

    Tranlation by Keysanger:

    ...on 18 March was the begin of a new phase in Lavalle's mission. This day was received in Santiago from Tacna by post and from Caldera by telegram Daza's decree that notified on 14 March all diplomats about the casus belli against Chile with all efects and consequences, together with other decrees of rupture of relations as long as the war lasted and of expulsion of Chileans and confiscation of his goods. The Chilean version saw that Bolivia aimed to impede the purchase of weapons to Chile. In reality, Daza intended to eliminate Lavalle's mission. Once again the Peruvian legation in La Paz failed because in accordance with the treaty such act should have been done in agreement between both . As long as no state of war between Chile and Bolivia existed , Chile couldn't require neutrality from Peru. Since Bolivia declared the war on Chile, the Chilean request of Peruvian neutrality was inevitable. The Bolivian declaration of war on Chile was (as stated by Chilean historian Bulnes) a traverse fault through the wheel of Lavalle's handkart. The situation worsened month to month ...

• All unassessed articles
• Start-Class South America articles
• High-importance South America articles
• Start-Class Bolivia articles
• High-importance Bolivia articles
• WikiProject Bolivia articles
• Start-Class Chile articles
• High-importance Chile articles
• WikiProject Chile articles
• Start-Class Peru articles
• Top-importance Peru articles
• WikiProject Peru articles
• WikiProject South America articles
• B-Class military history articles
• B-Class South American military history articles
• South American military history task force articles
• Old requests for peer review
• Selected anniversaries (March 2011)