Misplaced Pages

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

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)

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)

I agree also. Aley, please, write the proposal. I am sure you have understood the core of the question. --Keysanger (what?) 10:03, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

On February 27 the Bolivian legislature issued the authorization for a declaration of war, although it was not immediately announced. Instead, on March 1, 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, embargoed Chilean furniture, 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 retaliation from Bolivia". Then on March 14, Daza announced to representatives of foreign powers that a state of war now existed between herself and Chile. Bolivia then called on Peru to activate the alliance treaty, arguing that the Chile's invasion constituted a casus foederis. Chile, meanwhile, called on Peru to remain neutral.

I don't see any need to say anything else about the March 1 decree. Alex Harvey (talk) 12:27, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree your proposal. Can we write the lede and the Lavalle-mission in "Crisis" right now?. Keysanger (what?) 13:52, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

I disagree; why not? the March 1st Decree is explicit about the actions taken by the Bolivian goverment after the Chilean invasion of Antofagasta, this information is important for the context and latter events of the war. Greetings.Cloudaoc (talk) 14:34, 3 August 2011 (UTC) To Alex, sorry, but my original text was somehow cutted or lost when I posted. I'll clarify it as soon as remembered the original answer (but I think is not longer necessary). Greetings.--Cloudaoc (talk) 21:05, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Two points I disagree with:

1. How many historians mention the February 27 date? Could Keysanger provide more sources for it, because I really do not think that one source is legitimate enough to claim that the Bolivian legislature did something on February 27.
2. Chile "called on Peru to remain neutral" after Peru "revealed" (I will argue later that Chile already knew) the existence of the Mutual Defense treaty during the Lavalle mission.

The rest is, good. I like how you only mention what exactly happened and not what the authors assume happened. Best of wishes.--MarshalN20 | 14:31, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Regarding the Feb 27 date, I am led to believe the source is a reliable historian, and also a Peruvian. I would also think that anything done by the Bolivian legislature would be recorded - even if it was 150 years ago? - so I'd be surprised to find that a historian was wrong. I guess my question should be, is there really any reason to doubt this as a fact? That said, again, it's probably not all that important in the scheme of things. To Cloudaoc, I don't understand what you are saying. Could you clarify? Alex Harvey (talk) 12:07, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Bruce Farcau is not Peruvian (at least not that I know of). For me, Farcau's claim raises the WP:REDFLAG problem. Out of all historians listed, Farcau is the only one who mentions anything about the Bolivian legislature on February 27. As you mention, if anything done by the Bolivian legislature over 150 years ago should still be on record, then why is Farcau the only one who knows about it? Was William Sater's "Andean Tragedy", published in 2007, purposely ignorant of the Bolivian legislature's decision? Were historians for 150 years unaware of the Bolivian legislature's decision? Too many Red Flags rise at this point and time and, if Keysanger cannot find more sources certifying this view, then it should not be written as a commonly accepted fact. Note: Other than this point and the other, I have no problem with your proposal; and this would place a good end to the discussion.--MarshalN20 | 14:53, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Farcau call it "authorization from legislature", Jefferson call it "general war manifesto" and probably he took the names from its (primary) source: Senate Executive Documents, 47th Congress, 1st Session Vol. IV, Doc 79, p. 201. Also Herbert Millington in his work American Diplomacy and the War of the Pacific, Copyright by Columbia University Press, 1948, Published in Great Britain and India by Goeffrey Cumberlege, Oxford University Press, London and Bombay, asserts in page 25: "The Bolivian war manifesto was issued on February 27, 1879, …" (his primary sources are the correspondence between US-Minister in Bolivia Pettis to US-Secretary of State Evarts, June 6, 1879). We shouldn't forget that Bolivia was goberned by a dictator after a coup d'etat and the legislature was only an ornament of Daza.

I would suggest to use "Bolivian war manifesto" instead of "authorization from legislature".

Regarding the "secret", yes, there are historians that assume some level of Chilean knowledge. On the other hand it is very dificult to demostrate that a person knows X. For example Peruvian envoy Lavalle was member of the highest society of Lima, member of the Parlament and Peruvian embassador in Europa but he asserted that he didn't know until 22 March 1879 (Lavalle, 19):Era la primera idea que tenia yo de la existencia de semejante pacto!. Dictator Daza was informed only in Dec 1878 about the secret treaty (Daza que aun no conocia el texto y la trascendencia del tratado…", José de la Riva-Agüero y Osma, cited in Denegri, XLII).

I would agree something like "Some Chilean politicians probably got wind from the treaty before the crisis".

--Best regards, Keysanger (what?) 09:46, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

That would be:

On February 27 was issued in La Paz the general war manifesto with the authorization for a declaration of war, although it was not immediately announced. Instead, on March 1, 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, embargoed Chilean furniture, 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 retaliation from Bolivia". Then on March 14, Bolivia announced to representatives of foreign powers that a state of war now existed between herself and Chile and called on Peru to activate the alliance treaty, arguing that the Chile's invasion constituted a "casus foederis". Chile, meanwhile, called on Peru to remain neutral.

Best regards, Keysanger (what?) 10:55, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

If the "general war manifesto" contains a DoW against Chile, this was never announced or published because instead Daza issued the March 1 decree, therefore, the article cannot affirm than general war manifesto "was not immediately announced" because it was never announced, unless the general war manifesto contains the same declarations than the March 1 decree. And what was exactly declared in this manifesto? Do you have a facsimil copy or transcription of this one, or is just a reference? Greetings. --Cloudaoc (talk) 14:02, 5 August 2011 (UTC) Keysanger the "general war manifesto" is not other than the widely know "Proclama del Corvo" (Corvo Speech), published in February 27 in the Bolivian newspaper "El Comercio", which was archived by the Bolivian Senate, not issued by this, and this speech do not contain any declaration of war, in fact, the Millington text do not affirm in any part than this manifesto was in fact a DoW. Do you have a transcription of the Farcau text about this issue? Because is necessary confirm than both sources are talking about the same document. And even more the Millington text contains in its page 70, the formal war circular issued by the Bolivian Minister of Foreign Affairs, which sustain the initial Bolivian affirmation than exists an state-of-war with Chile, just like the state-of-war between Peru and Ecuador in the Cenepa War. Can you explain or sustain your initial affirmation further? Greetings.--Cloudaoc (talk) 14:26, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

I will only note a few things...

1. Farcau remains the only one stating anything about the "Bolivian legislature" doing something on February 27. Please provide additional sources to confirm whether Farcau is correct. If you cannot provide the information, then it cannot be placed as an accepted fact.
2. William Jefferson Dennis writes (Page 66): " published his proclamations February 25 and 27." Further down he provides the text in English. Jefferson Dennis does not support Farcau's claim that the "Bolivian legislature" proclaimed anything or issued anything on February 27.
3. I investigated what Cloudaoc presented and found it 100% accurate. The text of February 27 was not a "Bolivian general war manifesto", but rather yet another one of Daza's proclamations. Name of the proclamation: Proclama del Corvo (Corvo is a type of curved knife).

According to Chilean diplomat and historian Emilio Ruiz-Tagle Orrego (Published 1992): "In effect, on February 27, Daza made public a proclamation in which he energetically denounced the Chilean "agression", made by "peoples depraved by misery and vice, who comitt murders with the corvo knife".

This web (in Spanish) has the "Corvo Proclamation" as well, dated February 27 and proclaimed by Hilarion Daza (Not "Bolivia" or the "Bolivian legislature").

• Regarding the "secret" part of the treaty, this is a point I would like to further discuss on its own.

I would agree to the following paragraph...

On February 27, Daza issued a proclamation which informed Bolivians about the invasion and called for patriotic support against the invaders. Later, on March 1, he 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, embargoed Chilean furniture, 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 retaliation from Bolivia". Then on March 14, Bolivia announced to representatives of foreign powers in Lima that a state of war now existed between herself and Chile; and called on Peru to activate the alliance treaty, arguing that the Chile's invasion constituted a casus foederis.

That is all.--MarshalN20 | 17:23, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Y I´ll agree with this proposal. Greetings.Cloudaoc (talk) 19:50, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

(continue)

The proposal eludes to say what the historians write: the 1. March Bolivian declaration of war. Whatever occured on 1. March, Chile, Perú and, crucial for Misplaced Pages, the historians called it a "declaration of war". If we sidestep the 1. March Bolivian declaration of war then we have to sidestep the 5. April Chilean declaration of war and also the the 6. April Peruvian declaration of war. We will bark up the wrong tree. --Best regards, Keysanger (what?) 15:58, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Except for the first sentence, the rest of the proposal is what Alex proposed word-by-word (which you openly agreed just a few lines above). The March 1 decree is not "crucial" to any aspect of the conflict. (1) Chile "declared war" when Peru refused to "declare neutrality". (2) Peru declared war only when Chile declared war first. The March 1st decree didn't do anything important at all; it's just one out of a series of decrees/proclamations which Daza made following the Chilean invasion of Bolivia. Hence, there is no need to include it on the lead either.--MarshalN20 | 16:19, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

I propouse:

On February 27 the Bolivian legislature issued the authorization for a declaration of war, although it was not immediately announced. Instead, on March 1, Daza issued a declaration of war on Chile and 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, embargoed Chilean furniture, 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 retaliation from Bolivia". Then on March 14, Bolivia announced to representatives of foreign powers in Lima that a state of war now existed between herself and Chile. Bolivia then called on Peru to activate the alliance treaty, arguing that the Chile's invasion constituted a casus foederis. Chile, meanwhile, called on Peru to remain neutral.

--Best regards, Keysanger (what?) 12:01, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

1. The Bolivian legislature did not authorize anything on February 27.
2. On February 27, Hilarion Daza publicly announced ("Corvo Proclamation") the Chilean invasion of Bolivia, and told Bolivians to unite against the invaders.
3. Chile requested neutrality when Peru accepted the existence of the Mutual Defense Treaty (Not when Bolivia called for "casus foederis"), during the mediation.

What is so difficult to understand from these things?--MarshalN20 | 14:11, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

To Marshal above, I'm not sure that Farcau being the only historian (we know of) to mention legislative authorisation for a Bdow on Feb 27 is a red flag. For a red flag, I feel that you'd need to make an argument for why you think the Bolivian legislature probably didn't do any such thing on Feb 27, or show that another reliable source actually contradicts this. Now Daza's proclamation of Feb 27 tells us nothing about what Daza's legislature did that day. Daza presumably did a number of things on Feb 27. It sounds to me that for Daza to formally and legally declare war, he firstly needed his legislature to give him authorisation to do this - is this right? In any case, the fact that Farcau seems to be the only source mentioning perhaps it's not important. Perhaps we could drop the sentence because it's just not important? Alex Harvey (talk) 09:12, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

I think we can agree in:

On March 1, Bolivia issued a declaration of war on Chile and 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, embargoed Chilean furniture, 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 retaliation from Bolivia". Then on March 14, Bolivia announced to representatives of foreign powers in Lima that a state of war now existed between herself and Chile. Bolivia then called on Peru to activate the alliance treaty, arguing that the Chile's invasion constituted a casus foederis. Chile, meanwhile, called on Peru to remain neutral. Peru refused.

this considered MarshallN20 objections and, as I hope, it is a good agreement.

Often is it hard to get an agreement about the terms of reference, as I would like it, instead we agree about wording for the special case. It is the second best solution. But anyway I accept this wording under the condition that in any place within the article that deals this issue must be done in the spirit of this wording. --Best regards, Keysanger (what?) 11:58, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

@Keysanger, you haven't "considered" any of my objections. I am only objecting to 2 parts of Alex's proposal:

1. The February 27 sentence, due to conflicting sources.
2. The "Peru remain neutral" sentence, due to anachronism. Chile requested neutrality when the Treaty of Mutual Defense was "revealed" by Peru.

Everything else is fine, despite you now seem extremely interested in modifying it (despite previously agreeing to it).

@Alex, my primary argument is that Hilarion Daza witheld all news of the Chilean invasion of Antofagasta due to a carnival going on in Bolivia (In Spanish: ). My secondary argument is that Daza did not make a "war proclamation" on February 27, but rather simply made a manifesto which explained to Bolivians the ongoing military invasion and called for their patriotic support. I propose the following paragraph:

News of the Chilean invasion reached Hilarión Daza on February 20, but he decided to postpone its mention until the end of ongoing carnival festitivities. On February 27, Daza made a public manifesto informing Bolivians about the invasion and calling for patriotic support. Later, on March 1, he 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, embargoed Chilean furniture, 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 retaliation from Bolivia". Then, on March 14, Bolivia announced to representatives of foreign powers in Lima that a state of war now existed between herself and Chile; and called on Peru to activate the alliance treaty, arguing that the Chile's invasion constituted a casus foederis.

Nothing controversial; simply stating things as they happened (without any controversial opinion). What I'd like to know is why Keysanger does not like this proposal. Why does he want to include that "Chile called on Peru to remain neutral" despite this is anachronistic? Why does he want to change Alex's previous proposal despite previously agreeing to it?--MarshalN20 | 15:34, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Your proposal doesn't contain the "declaration of war".

Please take your proposal from 5 August 17:23 :

On February 27, Daza issued a proclamation which informed Bolivians about the invasion and called for patriotic support against the invaders. Later, on March 1, he Bolivia issued a decree which Declaration of war on Chile and 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, embargoed Chilean furniture, 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 retaliation from Bolivia". Then on March 14, Bolivia announced to representatives of foreign powers in Lima that a state of war now existed between herself and Chile; and called on Peru to activate the alliance treaty, arguing that the Chile's invasion constituted a casus foederis. Chile, meanwhile, called on Peru to remain neutral. Peru refused.

As you can see I used your proposal, deleted the question of 27 Feb that you don't like and added "declaration of war", plus "Chile, meanwhile, called on Peru to remain neutral. Peru refused".

All that you have accepted. OK?. --Best regards, Keysanger (what?) 19:27, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

I haven't accepted any of your changes. All I have accepted is what Alex Harvey (Not Keysanger) has suggested starting from "On March 1" and ending on "Casus foederis". The only thing "Bolivia" ever did was the March 14 notification of a state of war. Everything else (February 27, March 1) was done by Daza. My proposal includes what happened on February 20, when Daza received news of the invasion, and his response of February 27. Please stop distorting my position.--MarshalN20 | 20:07, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't accept Keysanger's proposal either, in so far as it goes back to asserting that the March 1 decree was a declaration of war, despite that we seem to have established that the declaration of war was probably on March 14. My hope was that we could simply say that Bolivia announced that a state of war now existed between herself & Chile on March 14 and let the reader draw the obvious conclusion that this was a declaration of war. As far as the Feb 27 date is concerned, I don't agree that Marshal has provided any evidence that throws any doubt onto Farcau's statement that the Bolivian legislature authorised a declaration of war that day. However, the matter could certainly be quickly settled if someone found another source other than Farcau. Alex Harvey (talk) 04:06, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

If Keysanger can provide another source which attributes the Bolivian legislature as having "authorised" a declaration of war, I will not contest its inclusion. That being said, I have provided sources which agree that what happened on February 27 was Daza's Proclamacion del Corvo (or Proclamacion del Cuchillo Corvo), which was nothing more than a manifesto informing Bolivians of the Chilean invasion.

Regarding the DoW, I also agree that March 14 is the uncontested date, and Alex's wording perfectly reflects what the sources present. I once again propose:

News of the Chilean invasion reached Hilarión Daza on February 20, but he decided to postpone its mention until the end of ongoing carnival festitivities. On February 27, Daza made a public manifesto informing Bolivians about the invasion and calling for patriotic support. Later, on March 1, he 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, embargoed Chilean furniture, 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 retaliation from Bolivia". Then, on March 14, Bolivia announced to representatives of foreign powers in Lima that a state of war now existed between herself and Chile; and called on Peru to activate the alliance treaty, arguing that the Chile's invasion constituted a casus foederis.

It mentions every single date, and lets the reader decide for themselves what they want. Only the first 2 sentences are different from what Alex proposed early in the discussion. If we can agree to this we will be able to move ahead into other discussion points. Best of wishes.--MarshalN20 | 04:58, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Regarding I have provided sources which agree that what happened on February 27 was Daza's Proclamacion del Corvo ... which was nothing more than a manifesto informing Bolivians of the Chilean invasion: Once again, I don't understand this point at all. You seem to be saying that because the President, Daza, made a public proclamation on Feb 27, that makes it unlikely that the legislature, which was presumably at least ostensibly independent of Daza, didn't authorise a declaration of war on the same day. Without doubt a lot of things happened on Feb 27 so I'll have to be honest and say I don't find this argument compelling at all - unless I am fundamentally missing something. Alex Harvey (talk) 07:49, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

My apologies Alex, that's not what I meant to express. My argument is to include the "Corvo Proclamation" as it is relevant information (Keysanger doesn't include it in his proposals). My counter-argument for the "Bolivian legislature" issue is the following: If it is true that the Bolivian legislature authorised war, then it should be easy to find more than one source that supports it. Both arguments are separate. If Keysanger manages to prove that the Bolivian legislature did authorize war, then both February 27 events should be mentioned. The part I don't agree with including at all is the sentence where "Chile requested Peru to remain neutral", as this did not take place on March 14 (If we recall, Peru's diplomat Lavalle was still negotiating matters in Chile on March 18).--MarshalN20 | 13:24, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

When did Bolivia issue the declaration of war?. --Best regards, Keysanger (what?) 17:19, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

As far I remember, Chile declared war against Bolivia in April 5, 1879; and there is not necessary a mutual declaration of war to establish a formal war between two o more countries. Can you provide any source to sustain than Bolivia explicitly declare war against Chile after the invasion of Antofagasta? Greetings.Cloudaoc (talk) 22:57, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

My understanding is that Alex proposes that the readers decide for themselves whether they want to attribute Bolivia's March 14 "State of War" notification as a declaration of war or not. For me that is the most sensible option since it avoids a long-winded discussion in the main text. Therefore, I agree with Alex, and I believed you (Keysanger) also agreed with him per your earlier statement. What now I don't understand is your (Keysanger's) desperate desire to somewhere include the term "declaration of war"?--MarshalN20 | 01:15, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

@Marshal, I agree on your point about dropping "Chile requested Peru to remain neutral" simply because this is already in the article a bit further down (I didn't see it when I proposed this originally). I think your proposal is good and don't have any problem with it myself.
@Keysanger, if Marshal & Cloudaoc are happy with Marshal's proposal it might be a good compromise. Importantly, I find it inconceivable that any reader will detect a difference between the phrases "Bolivia announced that a state of war existed on March 14" and "Bolivia declared war on March 14". Although I find it very hard to believe that Farcau would have asserted that the Bolivian legislature authorised a declaration of war on Feb 27 if it didn't in fact happen, at the same time it might be argued legitimately that if Farcau is the only source to mention it, it may not be important enough to mention. Alex Harvey (talk) 14:15, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

continue 2

MarshalN20's proposal, I repeat, lacks the mainstream knowledge asserted by Historians like Sater, Farcau, Cluny, Besadre, Denegri (from USA, United Kingdom, France and Peru) (among others) that on March 1. there was a Bolivian declaration of war. Misplaced Pages's editors can't change the mainstream of the histography and are compelled to repeat what the historians say. And they don't say "state of war", they say "declaration of war". Therefore I propose

• On March 1, Bolivia issued a Declaration of war on Chile and prohibited…

I agree on :

• News of the Chilean invasion reached Hilarión Daza on February 20, but he decided to postpone its mention until the end of ongoing carnival festitivities. On February 27, Daza made a public manifesto informing Bolivians about the invasion and calling for patriotic support. '

Regarding "neutral", in no place of MarshallN20's newest version is said that Peru refused to remain neutral. It must be said. Therefore I propose :

• Chile, meanwhile, asked on Peru to remain neutral. Peru refused. --Best regards, Keysanger (what?) 07:39, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

We have already had this discussion and you already agreed with my proposal, and that very clearly was that we do not call the March 1 decree a declaration of war. Sater is explicit that the March 1 decree was not a declaration of war. Moreover it seems very obvious to me from all I have read, including your sources, that the fact of the matter is March 1 wasn't a declaration of war. I already reject the proposal that "Chile, meanwhile, asked on Peru to remain neutral. Peru refused" because, as I just said, this is already in the article, but a bit further down. Alex Harvey (talk) 08:26, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, but I disagree. To write "state of war" would be a clear case of original research because the most of historians, also Sater, agree that there were a Bdow. --Best regards, Keysanger (what?) 11:39, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

It's certainly not original research; source (iii) in your list which you are counting as support for your position reads, "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 ... 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". Would you be satisfied if we added the letters of marque and formal war circular of March 31? Alex Harvey (talk) 12:45, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Y I'll agree with your proposal Alex, the references would be enough to cover the fact until the Chilean war declaration in April, and as far we noticed (and researched), is the only DoW explicitly stated as such. Greetings.Cloudaoc (talk) 02:48, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Y Needless to say, I agree with Alex as well. Also, as Alex noted, Hilarion Daza seems to have been playing with fire on purpose during this time. Moreover, as Cloudaoc notes, the only explicit declaration of war document in existence is from Chile (April 5). Of course, at no poin in Alex's version is it denied that Bolivia made a declaration of war in March, but rather it tells the story without any biased opinion. In any case, "state of war circulars" are by themselves a sort of declaration of the existence of war. It's much less confusing for readers to simply understand the events rather than for them to be told what to think.--MarshalN20 | 03:27, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't agree that referring to a Bdow is "biased opinion" but it does appear, if no one can actually find reference to an extant written Bolivian declaration of war, to be interpretation of Bolivia's March 14 announcement to foreign representatives that a "state of war" existed. Of course, there are still those few sources which say Bolivia formally declared war on March 18. In so far as there are reliable sources which make no mention of a Bdow I feel that this compromise should be adopted. If Keysanger is still not happy with this then I will raise an RfC presenting Keysanger's final proposal next to Marshal's and we should all agree to accept once and for all the verdict of uninvolved editors - unless further evidence can be presented of course. Alex Harvey (talk) 05:24, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

@Alex,

Precisely that is the question, the interpretation of the decree of 1. March. WP editors must abtain of interpretations of primary sources. Cloudac and MarshalN20 would like to read the decree and say "look at there, nowhere is the word declaration!, it isn't a declaration of war!" and then they would follow "Under international law there has been never a declaration of war ...". That would be original research. Look at that:

• Cloudac: As you can read, the text doesn't include the sentence: "La Républica de Bolivia declara la guerra a Chile" … or
• MarshalN20: the only explicit declaration of war document in existence is from Chile.

The english Misplaced Pages accepts interpretations of primary sources only if they are done by secondary sources and the Lowest common denominator of the list of 20 sources is that there was a Bolivian declaration of war. We can vary the date, because there is a lot of uncertainty on account of the non-existing telegraph line to La Paz but not about the core of the message of the historians, there is no confusion: the historians interpret the decree as a declaration of war.

I propose as date "in the Middle March" or "in March". In no way should the reader be mislead to the presuption that there wasn't a Bdow.

--Best regards, Keysanger (what?) 15:31, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

I recognize a uncertainty in my source University of Iowa because I can't find the word declaration. But there are the words Procamation of War, War Circular and General War Manifesto (pages 66, 70, 66). I think one of the three is a War declaration. May be?. --Best regards, Keysanger (what?) 15:43, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Maybe? Your guess about the meaning of these three documents is actually a clear example of WP:ORIGINAL, what you think about them is not relevant, and please refrain to make such affirmation against me, which is absolutely false. There is nothing to interpret in the March 1 decree, the text is plain an clear., and do not state any explicit DoW.Cloudaoc (talk) 16:30, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

The University of Iowa source is the same as the Jefferson Dennis source. Dennis uses "proclamation of war" and "war manifesto" for February 27, and he provides as source the text of the "Corvo Proclamation" (which is neither a proclamation of war or war manifesto). "War circular" is used for March 31 (War circulars are letters sent to foreign governments announcing a state of war and explaining the reasons for the war; in other words, "war circulars" are not declarations of war). How funny you forget to mention these things. I hope you're not again trying to confuse Alex? I'll respond to the rest of your points in number format:

1. No original research is being presented. The current proposal simply presents the events as how the majority of historians agree they took place.
2. Cloudaoc, Alex ,Cambalachero (who wrote a long statement in this talk page), and MarshalN20 (myself) are against writing "Bolivia declared war" and ending it with that. The situation is more complex.
3. At no point in the proposal is it denied that Bolivia declared war.
4. Considerable debate exists among historians regarding the March 1st decree. You keep trying to claim no controversy exists and dismiss my sources as "primary". Misplaced Pages cannot assert that March 1 was a "declaration of war" because the historical community is also divided on this topic (Including your source from William F. Sater).
5. The opinions of Cloudaoc and myself are nothing more than just that; we are entitled to our POV. The current proposal, based 100% on Alex Harvey's proposal, at no point includes our point of view.
6. Chile is indeed the only country who wrote an official declaration of war. This is not an opinion but a fact. I can provide you with the text of the Chilean declaration of war, but can you provide me the text of the official Bolivian and Peruvian declarations of war? As Cloudaoc noted a while back, a war does not necessarily start with declarations or proclamations. Did the Japanese attack Pearl Harbor prior to declaring war? Did Germany declare war on Poland prior to invading them?
7. As Ramiro Prudencio Lizon writes in La Razon (), telegraph lines were in use at the time. Bolivia did not have them, but Peru did. Hilarion Daza got the news of the Antofagasta invasion from Peru (On February 20-21), and later made its March 14 public from Lima (in Peru). You keep trying to claim that the lack of telegraph lines caused problems with the dates, but this is not the case at all.

4 editors have expressed their opinion in favor of a thorough explanation of the events which will allo the readers to understand the situation on their own. You are the only one who keeps demanding the opposite.--MarshalN20 | 16:20, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

@Keysanger, because I don't want to spend the rest of my life splitting hairs over this I have proposed an RfC below. I'd like everyone to agree that the RfC itself is fair and then we can hopefully settled the dispute with a vote given to uninvolved editors. Alex Harvey (talk) 14:08, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

The road to the Bdow

We have long discussed about the issue and find out that there was a Bolivian declaration of war but were astonished about the different dates authors assign to this event. There were 4 dates: 27 February, 1., 14. and 18. March 1879.

Alex and Keysanger don't have any trouble understanding the discrepancy in the dates given Boliva's lack of telegraph lines, but how have to be ordered and understand?

The 27. February is not very important because it was only an authorization for the war given by the legislature within a dictature. Only an ornamental question. Moreover 1866 (?), the Bolivian legislature had already issued a similar authorization but nothing occured.

The German book that deals in detail with the question 1.-14. February. It is Gerhard Lang's, "Boliviens Streben nach freiem Zugang zum Meer", Hamburger Gesellschaft für Völkerrecht und Auswärtige Politik, edited by Prof. Dr. Herbert Krüger, Band 6, Hamburg 1966, page 25:

Die peruanisch-chilenischen Verhandlungen waren noch im Gange. Da gab der bolivianische Sonderbevollmächtigte in Perú, Außenminister Serapio Reyes Ortiz, der den Auftrag hatte, von der peruanischen Regierung gemäß Artikel 3 des Bündnisvertrages von 1873 die Anerkennung des casus foederis zu erwirken, namens seiner Regierung dem bei der peruanischen Regierung akkreditierten diplomatischen Korps am 14. März durch Zirkularnote die vom 1. März datierte Kriegserklärung Boliviens an Chile(Fußnote 54) bekannt. Dieser ungewöhnliche Schritt, eine Kriegserklärung auf diese Weise publik zu machen, erklärt sich daraus, daß zu jener Zeit nur wenige Länder in La Paz vertreten waren und die Nachrichtenübermittlung von dort wesentlich längere Zeit benötigte als von Lima aus. Mit der rechtzeitigen Bekanntgabe der Kriegserklärung aber sollten die Auslieferung von Kriegsschiffen, die bei europäischen Werften im Auftrag gegeben worden waren, und weitere Waffenlieferungen an Chile verhindert werden. (Fußnote 54: State papers, Bd. 71, S. 926)

Translation 1:

The Peruvian-Chilean negotiations were still in progress when, on his government's behalf, the Bolivian special plenipotentiary in Peru, foreign minister Serapio Reyes Ortiz, who was commissioned to obtain the Peruvian government's recognition of casus foederis according to article 3 of the 1873 treaty of alliance, announced Bolivia's declaration of war on Chile (Footnote 54), dated March 1 by circular note, to the diplomatic Corps accredited to Peru on March 14. This unusual step, to make public a declaration of war in this fashion, can be explained by the fact that only few countries were represented in La Paz at the time, and communications from there took significantly longer than from Lima. The timely announcement of the declaration of war, however, was supposed to impede the deployment of war ships that had been commissioned to European shipyards, as well as the delivery of weapons to Chile.

Translation 2:

The Peruvian-Chilean negotiations were still in progress. At that time, on his government's behalf, the Bolivian special plenipotentiary in Peru, foreign minister Serapio Reyes Ortiz announced Bolivia's declaration of war on Chile (Footnote 54), dated March 1 by circular note, to the diplomatic Corps accredited to Peru on 14. March. (Reyes Ortiz had been commissioned to obtain the Peruvian government's recognition of casus foederis according to article 3 of the 1873 Treaty of Alliance.) The unusual step of making public a declaration of war in this fashion can be explained by the fact that only few countries were represented in La Paz at the time, and communications from there took significantly longer than from Lima. The timely announcement of the declaration of war, however, was meant to impede the deployment of warships that had been commissioned from European shipyards, as well as the delivery of weapons to Chile.

The information given in the paragraph explains the relationship between the declaration of war issued by Daza in La Paz on 1. March and the anouncement of Bolivian foreign minister Reyes in Lima on 14. March. Lacking enough international resonance from the declaration in La Paz they declared it also in Lima in order to stop delivery of weapons to Chile.

About the 18. March, Jose Lavalle's report ("Mi mision en Chile en 1879", Edición, prólogo y notas por Félix Denegri Luna , Lima, Peru, 1979, Instituto de Estudios Histórico-Marítimos del Perú.) states that (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

(The text of envoy Lavalle is a primary source)

Jorge Besadre, the wellknown Peruvian historician states that same in "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.

That is, on 18 March was published in Chilean official newspaper the Bolivian declaration of war. For understandable reasons some authors skips to repeat the date of the 1. March or the date of the 14 March or the date of the 18. March.

My proposal for the article is:

• On March 1, Bolivia issued a declaration of war on Chile and 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, embargoed Chilean furniture, 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 retaliation from Bolivia". Then on March 14, Bolivia's foreign minister Serapio Reyes Ortiz announced to representatives of foreign powers in Lima that a state of war now existed between herself and Chile. Bolivia then called on Peru to activate the alliance treaty, arguing that the Chile's invasion constituted a casus foederis. Chile, meanwhile, called on Peru to remain neutral. Peru refused.

In view of the fact that the 22 given sources support the text of the proposal, there should be no reason to bring the case to the RfC, what in any case can be done if Alex or others insists.

--Best regards, Keysanger (what?) 12:50, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

This doesn't surprise me at all. You, Keysanger:

1. Keep disregarding the sources which clearly state that the March 1 declaration was not a declaration of war (which include the source you provided: William F. Sater).
2. Keep disregarding the conflict of dates (March 14, March 18, February 27, and even February 7?) and attribute it to a "telegraph problem". Yet, the Bolivia-Peru communications barely took 3-4 days (Mollendo had telegraph lines connected to Lima), while the Peru-Chile communications were just a matter of hours. There was no telegraph problem.
3. Have yet to provide anoter source which verifies that the Bolivian legislature authorized war, but keep mentioning it as if it were a fact.
4. Keep insisting on the "Peru to remain neutral" stuff despite both Alex and I have explained it is redundant (repeated in the paragraph below).

Gerhard Lang's intepretation is interesting, to say the least. My understanding (from his text) is that Bolivia published the War Circular in Lima, on March 14, because Lima had telegraph lines. Other than that, nothing new is really being provided.--MarshalN20 | 14:46, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

1) There are a lot of sources that set the date of the Bdow to 1. March and the other sources doesn't contradict but support the dates as given in the proposal: the subsequent announcement of 14. March in Lima and the 18. March publication in Santiago. Sater's version doesn't say "was not a", he says "aparently was not a".

2) I don't know any 7? issue. La Paz was conected neither to Lima nor Arica nor Tacna. Mollendo is a town bordering the Pacific Ocean in southern Peru!.

3) I don't provide any other source about 27 February because the 27. February doesn't appear in the proposal.

4) The "Peru to remain neutral .. Peru refused" stuff can be shortened as far as appears in other place

Do you have substantive claims? or better, do you have reliable sources that states that "unter international law there wasn't a Bdow"?. --Best regards, Keysanger (what?) 18:13, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

1. "There are a lot" of sources which claim the war took place at other dates, thereby they contradict the March 1st idea.
2. I'm not even going to argue about the Sater source. Whether he had a poor use of words or thought it sounded good, the basic concept of his statement is that he is against the idea of Bolivia declaring war on March 1st. His change of mind from previous books only serves to confirm that, upon further research, he has realized his mistake.
3. La Paz -> Mail travels through Lake Titicaca (probably through steamboat) -> Mail reaches Mollendo -> Telegraph from Mollendo to Lima -> Hello World! Ramiro Prudencio Lizon in La Razon explains this quite clearly () and further claims that Chilean historian Benjamín Vicuña Mackenna wrote "the news did not reach La Paz through a long desert travel or in the slow step of a donkey, but rather in the wings of vapor and the electric telegraph".
4. In this old map (, Mollendo and Lima are among the "major telegraph" points by 1891. This didn't happen from one day to another, and serves to further support Mackenna's and Prudencio Lizon's statements. Your claim that there were "correspondence delays" which caused the "errors in the dates" is completely absurd.

In conclusion, since there is no general agreement among historians of when (what specific date) Bolivia supposedly "declared war", Misplaced Pages should not present any date as a fact. Alex's solution of simply presenting what happened based on the accounts from historians is, by far, the best option. Alex's solution not only provides a smooth read, but also gives readers the option to decide for themselves what they think about Hilarion Daza's actions (instead of being told he's the "bad" or "good" guy, it is up to the reader to evaluate his actions). If you could simply agree with that, as you originally did (but then changed your mind), then this problem could be over.--MarshalN20 | 20:54, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Issue 3: Repase references

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)

"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"

I agree with Cambalachero's opinion (particularly the sentence above). However, I think that Alex has made a good proposal which avoids any in-depth discussion (well, at least in the article, but the footnote will hold more on it). Whether that's good or bad, not sure but I assume it's good.

• Regarding the start of the war, I have provided 28 sources which all state Chile began the war with their invasion of Antofagasta. Unless anyone wants to contradict this overwhelming point, that is how it should be presented in the article. As Cambalachero states, "the aggresor is not who declares war first, but who begins the hostilities first".

Finally, I don't think it's relevant at all to mention anything about Bolivia declaring war (or not declaring war) in the LEAD. It did not affect anything on the course of events which followed. Chile declared war on Peru and Bolivia on the basis that they had formed a "secret offensive alliance", and Peru declared war based on Chile's declaration.

Thank you for expressing your suggestions Cambalachero. I hope you continue providing your opinion on the discussion. Best of wishes.--MarshalN20 | 14:45, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

I completelly agree with you Cambalachero, there is a patron in the use of sources with trivial information (like Globalsecurity.com in this case) in almost all the articles about the Salpeter War, and in almost all the articles (and its sections) about this topic are made with two or more version of the same fact, making almost useless as an information source (because as you say, the article becomes historiographic, not longer historic), there is also an tendency to discard the primary sources, like battle reports, treaties, declarations, etc. using as an excuse the Misplaced Pages policy about them. I'll hope than we can read more "cents" from you in this and other articles. Greetings.Cloudaoc (talk) 14:48, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Regarding the primary sources, the strange part is that Peruvian/Bolivian primary sources have been generally discarded in past discussions (Note: Not with Alex Harvey, who has a been an excellent help so far), but the article is heavily referenced by Gonzalo Bulnes (1851-1936), Chilean "historian" and racist nationalist who wrote: "What defeated Peru was the superiority of a race and of a history." He is one of the people that modern Chilean historians, such as Lutz, claim distort Chilean history. A similar situation happens with Diego Barros Arana (1830-1907). Why this article cites them so much, especially when Keysanger is so quick to scream "Primary Source" upon Peruvian/Bolivian sources, is beyond my understanding.--MarshalN20 | 15:02, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Exactly MarshallN20, another Chilean historian questioned even in Chile is Sergio Villalobos, his books are practically an apology to the Chilean view of the war, and are full with distorted data and references, but is used in articles like the Ocupattion of Lima, which practically says than Peruvian looters are the major responsables for the ransack of the National Library, public and private buildings, etc. Another example of this is the article about the battle of Iquique is in fact a copy-paste from the Chilean Navy website version of the battle translated to english, and is almost free of Peruvian sources. And nobody says there "There is a POV here!"...About the reason of why the articles about the war relies so much in Chilean sources is clear to me, but will not be appropiate to say, according with Misplaced Pages policies. Greetings.Cloudaoc (talk) 15:43, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, the best solution would be to check all of those sources and find if secondary sources support their analysis. Also, if the Battle of Iquique is indeed a copy-paste of a website, then you have every right to delete all of the copy-paste information as Misplaced Pages has a strict copyright policy (everyone can copy Misplaced Pages, but Misplaced Pages can't copy the work of anyone else). Best regards.--MarshalN20 | 21:32, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Mediation and revisions

Hi Cloudac and Cambalachero,

as you may noted, the current version of the article has a plenty of flaws ("defensive treaty", "unter international law", "repase references", "Peru revealed treaty", and others) that are being mediated with the friendly help of Alex Harvey.

A consensus for a balanced, neutrale point of view, with reliable and verificable sources, must be reached before we can improve the article. To change a (bad) wording for a (worse) wording without consensus doesn't fix any problem but confuse the discussion and will probably start a edit war.

In order to make a efficient work we need to fix the wording, references, issues, weights, etc, used in the article and we can do it if and only if the wording, references, issues, weights, etc remain stable during the discussion.

Alex Harvey, MarshallN20, and Keysanger have agreed to the version of Alex Harvey on 27 July 2011 at 8:26. No other version has been edited in agreement. The mediation is making astonishing progress, all participants are contributing with the best of his ideas and I encourage you to participate actively in the work. But please, abstain of make any significant revisions that bring confusion or edits wars to the discussion.

--Best regards, Keysanger (what?) 14:46, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

The edits made to the article do not affect the discussions taking place:

1. The "offensive-defensive" issue is not being edited and has been left as Alexh suggested.
2. The March 1 decree issue is also not being edited as it is under discussion.
3. The "secret" or "not secret" issue is also not being edited despite it is currently not under discussion.

The rest of the article can be edited as the page is not ours (we don't WP:OWN the page). Best of wishes.--MarshalN20 | 16:33, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Alex Harvey has repeatedly asked

• we should be trying to resolve one issue at a time
• 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?

us to stop edit war. Let us talk about the changes step by step. We will have enough time. --Best regards, Keysanger (what?) 11:54, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

1. You're the one that keeps creating multiple disputes (including this one) for no good reason.
2. You don't WP:OWN the article.

Please stop reverting the edits done to the article.--MarshalN20 | 14:05, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

A couple of my friends like skiing, and it's quite a fun sport (except when they fall). The editors have avoided making any changes to the ongoing topics discussed, and that has been for the best. Your contribution is much appreciated, even if it's not a "formal mediation". So far you've been fair to both sides, especially by being open to listen to each of us, and your suggestions have been logical and in accordance to Misplaced Pages's rules. Thank you.--MarshalN20 | 13:39, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Draft RfC

I have created a draft RfC at User:Alexh19740110/Draft_RfC_Bdow and I would like editors to agree on the wording, sources, and so on & then we'll post it here as a RfC. Perhaps discussion related to getting the RfC text right should go at the Draft_RfC_Bdow discussion page. Alex Harvey (talk) 07:58, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Thank you Alex. I have edited (moved) some of the sources for better analysis. I explained the changes in the edit summaries. Best of wishes.--MarshalN20 | 14:27, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

While it is clear from Sater that the March 1 decree and a later "declaration of war" are two different things, Keysanger has argued that the confusion over March 14 vs 18 may simply be the date of an announcement or declaration of war in Bolivia and the conveying of the same announcement back to Chile due to the lack of telegraph lines. So I don't think those sources saying war was declared on March 18 necessarily contradict those that say it was declared on March 14. Perhaps proposal #1 could perhaps be changed to "middle of March" as Keysanger suggested. Alex Harvey (talk) 09:21, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

I see your point, but I'd throw into consideration a couple of things:

(1)Lima-Santiago (Peru-Chile) had a same-day telegraph system. The Bolivian minister in Lima read Hilarion Daza's "war circular" on March 14; and record exists of Godoy (Chile's minister in Lima) and Alejandro Fierro (Chile's foreign minister in Santiago) sending each other telegraphed messages that same day discussing Bolivia's decision to announce a "state of war" to foreign powers.

(2)According to both Jose de la Valle (Peru's chief diplomat in Santiago) and Jorge Basadre (historian), on March 18, Daza's March 1 (not 14) decree was made public in Santiago. Basically, in terms of dates and decrees, March 18 = March 1.

I think, based on these 2 points, that "middle of March" would not fit properly (March 14 is more exact). What do you think?--MarshalN20 | 11:13, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

At least one of the sources states explicitly that a telegraph line could have prevented the war. There must be a reason for this. Also, regarding March 18, if you were correct, you would have Sater making an absurd self contradictory statement; he says the March 1 decree was apparently not a formal declaration of war, but holds that such a declaration was made on March 18. Alex Harvey (talk) 11:33, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

The source you refer to is the University of Iowa (Which is the same as the Jefferson Dennis source). My understanding of Jefferson Dennis' words is that a telegraph line between Bolivia and Chile might have eased discussions as Daza could have messaged directly with Chilean president Pinto. Dennis claims that Pinto told Lavalle (the Peruvian chief diplomat in Santiago) that Godoi (Chile's minister in Lima, Peru) was "excitable and influenced by visionaries". In other words, the Chile->Peru correspondence was doomed to go bad due to the imperialist/nationalist ambitions of the "visionaries", whereas the Chile->Bolivia correspondence could have ended in a much different situation (which would not have involved Peru).

In case of doubt, here is the text: On March 24, President Pinto wrote a member of the cabinet that he believed Peru was "bluffing" and that he did not think Prado wanted war nor that many people in Peru did. He was right. Few people in Peru wanted war for the country was not united after the recent civil wars. But they were bound by a treaty between Bolivia and their government, made when both countries were under different administrations. The following day Lavalle wrote his government that Pinto had told him that Godoi was excitable and influenced by visionaries, and that allowance should be made for his temperament. However, military time tables had started and when they start all the peace ships and conferences in the world can hardly stop them. 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.

Regarding the March 18 matter. Here are the texts.

Lavalle (word for word): "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."

Basadre: On March 18 a new period opened in Lavalle's mission. That day Santiago received, from Tacna through correspondence and from Caldera through telegraph the decree expedited by President Daza and notified to the diplomatic body the 14th of March establishing the casus belli with Chile and all its effects and consequences, along with other decrees of diplomatic rupture while the war lasted and the expulsion and confiscation of Chilean goods in Bolivia.

Both sources make note that, on March 18, the March 1st decree was published in Santiago (Chile). At least that's what I understand, but I may be wrong. What do you think?--MarshalN20 | 15:07, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

I think the phrase "establishing the casus belli with Chile and all its effects and consequences, along with other decrees of diplomatic rupture while the war lasted" may well be a formal declaration of war? Alex Harvey (talk) 05:54, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

No, a formal declaration of war is always explicit, that's why the Bolivian government was very carefully in the words chosen to made its official declarations. As I mentioned before, not all the wars starts with a formal DoW, in fact is almost the opposite, just a few conflicts were initiated with a DoW, even today. The Cenepa War is a clear example, neither side mades a formal DoW, but as far I remember the Peruvian Congress issued a warning to the Ecuadorian government, declaring than if the Peruvian President was harmed or killed during its visit to the frontline, Peru inmediately declares war to the Ecuador. Greetings. Cloudaoc (talk) 14:08, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

@Alex, establishing the casus belli (case for belligerence or cause of belligerence) is not a declaration of war. The casus belli being refered to in this case is the Chilean invasion of Antofagasta, which the majority of historians attribute as the start of the War of the Pacific. "Establishing the casus belli" is simply another form of stating a justification for the war (i.e, why Bolivia is at war with Chile), but not a declaration of war against a country. "Diplomatic rupture" is not a declaration of war either as Bolivia has constantly ruptured relations Chile in the 20th century, but war has not been declared. Basically, in simpler terms, both sources are refering to the Bolivian War Circular; and War Circulars aren't declarations of war either. War circulars are messages provided to foreign governments (mainly neighboring countries) explaining why a country considers itself at war with another country. Chile also made a war cicular in April, in which it explained its position in the conflict, while Peruvian president Prado made a casus foederis announcement (which also explained Peru's position in the conflict).

Using the United States as an example. After the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, the United States declared it to be the casus belli (reason for conflict) and then the US Congress formally authorized the declaration of war from the president (Roosevelt went on to declare war on Japan and its allies, Germany and Italy). The United States has not formally declared war on another country ever since then, and yet the US has been at war several other times (Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq). The casus belli for the Afghanistan invasion was the September 11 bombardments, while the casus belli for Iraq was the alleged housing of WMDs. I'm not sure what the Vietnam/Korea casus belli were at the time...my guess is that they didn't bother to explain it either (which is why much anti-war protests came about). Therefore, establishing the casus belli is not a declaration of war, much less is it formal.--MarshalN20 | 15:24, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

And what about "and all its effects and consequences" ...? Anyhow, I found anther book, Lines in the Sand by William E. Skuban and he wrote, "President Daza of Bolivia responded by declaring war on Chile on February 27." Further, I was able to find his email address and I've written to him to see if he can explain why there are so many dates for this declaration of war and what the nature of the actual declaration was. He hasn't responded yet but I suppose we should give him a few days to respond. Alex Harvey (talk) 15:25, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Analysis:

(1)The terms "Effects" and "Consequences" are synonyms (the same meaning). He states them both for the sake of sounding good.

(2)Given the contex in which the phrase is used, it means that Chile's invasion started the war. "Chile's invasion started" being the casus belli, and "the war" is its consequence.

It's great that you have contacted Skuban, but it may end up being a dead end. I'd love to hear his explanation.--MarshalN20 | 16:16, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

William E. Skuban has not replied and while it's possible that he's away or very busy it's probably time to raise this RFC - is Keysanger still here? Alex Harvey (talk) 11:16, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes. I posted a last proposal with a in-depth analisys of the old and newest sources that I consider definitive. Please take a look to the road to the Bdow. There should be no doubt at all any more. --Best regards, Keysanger (what?) 12:56, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

@Alex, my guess is that Skuban is busy. I honestly don't know what else could be added to the discussion (sources) that hasn't already been mentioned. Keysanger's newest source provides nothing new to the discussion (despite he seems to think it to be the "definitive" source). I'm ready for the RfC.--MarshalN20 | 16:03, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

It's great that Skuban replied, but I feel he has demonstrated to be an example of a "parrot source" (simply repeats what he has found, without really investigating why different dates for the alleged DoW exist). I do agree with him that Farcau probably knows more about it; he's a veteran of the US Foreign Service. However, he has somewhat of a celebrity status, so it might be difficult to get a hold of him. If you do get to contact Farcau, it would be great if he could actually explain why he considers March 14 as the date of the Bolivia DoW. Regarding Keysanger's source, as you mention near the end of your statement: "Sources saying the same thing make that much difference". Many of those sources tend to be "parrots" which just jump off the cliff because they've seen others do it.--MarshalN20 | 14:31, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Actually what I really mean is that I think - as far as Misplaced Pages's rules go - Keysanger has probably provided enough evidence to support the proposition that Bolivia declared war. Unfortunately I think that an RFC will bring in suggestions that favour Keysanger's position. I say unfortunately because I am now persuaded personally that the situation in reality was more complicated. So if we are all tired of this discussion, I suggest we move forward to that RFC - and if Keysanger could update my proposal with a wording that he is happy with we can get this moving. In the mean time, I have searched for an email address for Farcau with no luck so I asked Prof. Skuban if he has Farcau's email address. If we prefer we can wait to see if I can contact Farcau. Also, perhaps someone would like to propose the next POV concern - is Keysanger still concerned about the 'defensive alliance' issue? - because one way or another (whether we search for more evidence, wait for Farcau, or raise an RFC), we will need to wait several weeks to have this issue finally settled. Alex Harvey (talk) 07:08, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Keysanger's proposal:

On March 1, Bolivia issued a declaration of war on Chile and 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, embargoed Chilean furniture, 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 retaliation from Bolivia". Then on March 14, Bolivia's foreign minister Serapio Reyes Ortiz announced to representatives of foreign powers in Lima that a state of war now existed between herself and Chile. Bolivia then called on Peru to activate the alliance treaty, arguing that the Chile's invasion constituted a casus foederis. Chile, meanwhile, called on Peru to remain neutral. Peru refused.

@Alex, Keysanger can provide as many sources as he wants that say "Bolivia declared war on Chile". That's great for him. However, when it comes down to the dates, there exists a conflict not only among those who state "DoW did not take place on such-and-such date", but also among those who provide the different dates (February 27, March 1, March 14, and March 18). Given that controversy, Misplaced Pages cannot attribute a specific date to Bolivia's alleged DoW. This goes along the lines of what Cambalechero wrote in this talk page: Vague sources, as plenty as they may be, are useless in a discussion that deals with specific times. If the RfC goes in favor of Keysanger, all I can expect from it is a vague DoW mention.--MarshalN20 | 14:33, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Timeline

I see that we don't have the same view interpretation of the Wikiedia rules and want to explain my view of.

1. The threshold for inclusion in Misplaced Pages is verifiability, not truth In my opinion that means in this case that we have to repeat what the historians say, we like it or we don't like it. And the historians say that there was a Bolivian declaration of war, that is unchallengeable. Beside two or three unknown Peruvian and Bolivian sources there is nothing about the "Under international law there was no Bolivian declaration of war". Of course I would like to have only one document, only one date, only one name and only one opinion of all historians about every aspect of the war of the pacific. We haven't it. And also because this reason it does matter how many reliable sources state that there was a Bolivian delaration of war. It is a difference because there are two Peruvian and Bolivian sources that states the opposite but 22 sources that state the positive statement.
2. A declaration of war is a formal act by which one nation goes to war against another. The declaration is a performative speech act (or the signing of a document) by an authorized party of a national government in order to create a state of war between two or more states. We know that this act exists, it is the act of 1. March 1879. See page 65.
3. What about the multiple dates for the Bdow? Why?. May be a timeline can help us to dispose of once and for all the doubts about the sequence of the facts.

As expected for a events that were not recorded in writing and only seldom analysed by the histography, the historians can use different names for the same event or different events for the same fact. Therefore we have that some historian consider the 1. March text, others take in account the 14. March and so on.

Alex, if you read carefully the sources, you will note that every event of this timeline is supported by at least one source and, very important, it is factually not contradicted by the other sources. "factually" means that the names may be inapropiate but the fact and the dates don't contradict the timeline.

Please, take a look to the lede of the current Misplaced Pages version of the Chilean Declaration of Independence.

The Chilean Declaration of Independence is a document declaring the independence of Chile from the Spanish Empire. It was drafted in January 1818 and approved by Supreme Director Bernardo O'Higgins on February 12, 1818 at Talca, despite being dated in Concepción on January 1, 1818. The ceremony of independence was performed on February 12, 1818, the first anniversary of the Battle of Chacabuco.

The original document, displaying manuscript comments by O'Higgins, was damaged at the Palace of the Real Audiencia of Chile. In 1832, under President José Joaquín Prieto, a new copy was sent to Peru to be signed by O'Higgins, and later by his former ministers, Miguel Zañartu, Hipólito Villegas and José Ignacio Zenteno, who were still living in Chile. This copy was kept at the Palacio de La Moneda until the 1973 Chilean coup d'état, when it was destroyed during the fighting.

We have a draft from January 1818, approved 12. February 1818, back dated to January 1. 1818 and 1832 was made a new copy of the document. Four documents with the same name, different circumtances and different content. And this lede doesn't consider the Act of 18 September 1810, that I personally hold for the actually Declaration of Independence.

Not enough?. Here are events that despite some uncertainty in the date or circumtances are accepted as facts by the history:

• Desiderius Erasmus : Desiderius Erasmus was born in Rotterdam on October 28. The exact year of his birth is debated but some evidence confirming 1466 can be found in Erasmus's own words (year?)
• John Colet : he was born in London in January 1467 (day?)
• Battle of Yanbu : Date 1811 (month?, day?)
• Battle of Al-Safra : Date 1812 (month?, day?)
• Battle of Medina (1812) (month?, day?)
• Single bullet theory#Criticisms of the Single Bullet Theory (how many snipers?)
• Category:Date of birth unknown

--Best regards, Keysanger (what?) 20:20, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

William F. Sater: " 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."

Keysanger on William F. Sater: "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."

Keysanger is obviously cherry picking the sources. He discards what he doesn't like, and only takes into account whatever it is that is convenient for his argument. When taking into account all of the sources, a conflict of dates rises. Not only does this rise from the side against a Bolivian DoW, but also from the side in favor of a Bolivia.

It's easy for Keysanger to claim that "Bolivia declared war on March 1st", because "most sources say Bolivia declared war". However, he ignores that those "most sources" (such as William F. Sater) explicitly claim that the declaration of war was at some other time (February 27, March 14, March 18). In Sater's case, he goes as far as to disregard the March 1st decree as a DoW, claiming that it "did not constitute a formal declaration of belligerence".

In any case, what's even more astounding aside from his cherry picking is his apologetic nature. He pretends to know what these historians were thinking. He assumes that they made "errors" on their dates, and blames it on telegraph lines. This discussion could have been over long ago if it wasn't for this Keysanger's absurd cherry picked and apologetic argument.--MarshalN20 | 20:58, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Regarding your "Chilean Declaration of Independence" example. It actually follows what Alex suggests: Present the information as it exactly happened. The other examples you provide in no way compare to this discussion. While they don't know when their event took place, we do have plenty of sources describing what happened at every single date mentioned (February 27, March 1, March 14, and March 18). In any case, your position is understandeable: Cherry picking makes it difficult to see the big picture, especially as the cherry pickers only focus on the certain aspects that are beneficial to them.--MarshalN20 | 21:18, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

@Keysanger, you wrote above that "Daza issued the 1 March decree with the declaration of war in La Paz". That sentence doesn't make any sense to me. You need to provide an explanation that acknowledges Sater's view that the formal declaration was given on March 18 then this might be settled. If March 1 was not a formal declaration of war, then no one, anywhere, has so far explained how we get from a decree carefully worded to avoid a declaration of war to a declaration of war on March 14 or March 18. If all that happened on March 18 was that the March 1 decree was published - and if the March 1 decree wasn't a declaration of war - I do not understand how publication of this decree is also a declaration of war. As far as Misplaced Pages rules goes, the verifiability requirement cuts both ways here. Marshal can equally point to Sater and show that March 1 declaration wasn't a declaration of war (Sater)_and that is verifiable too. So again I believe the only way to resolve this is with outside opinions. Alex Harvey (talk) 22:43, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Hi Alex,

I read Sater's sentence and have no problem to understand it. Perhaps I made a mistake but if I analyze the 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.

I find that:

• "imposed a state of war" is a sentence from Article 1 of the March 1. decree, ("mientras dure la guerra que ha promovido a Chile"). That means the original decree of the war is the 1. March decree and not the 27. February Manifesto as some editor insists to promote.
• The English word "apparently" has a ambiguous meaning in English. In German there are two words for this English word ("apparently" corresponds to either anscheinend or offensichtlich). "anscheinend" (=to seem?) means "It looks like red but it could be green" and "offensichtlich" (=obviously) means "it looks like red and it is red". We can have a never-ending discussion about which one should be used, but the sentence doesn't end there it continues and say which he announced on 18 March. What is the only possible meaning of the word "which"? Answer: "which" means "the formal declaration of belligerence". Now I ask you: Does Sater state that there was a Bolivian declaration of war?. YES. Sater states that Daza announced it (the formal declaration of war) on 18. March.
• Why the 18 March and not the 14 March?. He took the 18. March as we took the Chilean Declaration of Independence of the 18 February 1818 and not the other. For Desiderius Erasmus Birthdate Misplaced Pages takes 1466 as year.
• Sater says explicite that " Apparently this decree did not constitute a formal declaration of belligerence, which he announced on 18 March." That means a formal declaration of belligerence was announced on 18 March. I repeat the formal declaration of beligerance.
• Regarding "how we get from a decree carefully worded to avoid a declaration of war to a declaration of war on March 14 or March 18". That is pure WP:OR. That would be our personal interpretation of the 1. March decree. Believe me, the 1.March decree can be interpreted in different ways. The whole justice administration in every modern country, (senate, parlament, lobby, lawyers, judges, secretaries, universities, law schools, legal books editorials, notaries, policemen, attorneys, etc) is living from the interpretation of laws, decrees, rules, treaties, etc. Let the historians do the work. That are the English Misplaced Pages rules: no original reserch.

I think my "Bolivia declared war on 1. March" is better than "Bolivia declared the state of war" because:

• No historian says "Bolivia declared the state of war"
• "Bolivia declared the state of war" will be used by people with an ideological agenda to asserts that "Under international law there has been never a Bolivian declaration of war" and that is biased non-sense, WP:POV and WP:OR.

It is hard to believe that Misplaced Pages would change one of three core content policies, along with Neutral point of view and Verifiability. Would you accept that I write in the article my own interpretation of the secret alliance of Peru and Bolivia or of the 1.March decree?. I personally don't want to cooperate in a Misplaced Pages full of personal editor opinions. If I want to comunicate my opinion I would use a blog.

If we want to finish the discussion then we can use some thing like "In March Bolivia declared war on Chile". All 22 sources support it and no one contradict it.

--Best regards, Keysanger (what?) 10:34, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

@Alex, that's great! Farcau ought to have a good insight into this matter.

@Keysanger, you continue with your apologetic and cherry picked argument. You justify the alleged "errors" and once more only see what is convenient to your argument.

1. "Chile imposed a state of war on Bolivia" is not a declaration of war. Why? Because that's exactly what William F. Sater writes right after that statement. No WP:OR as you claim.
2. "Apparently" is being used quite effectively by Sater: (Paraphrase) "It's not March 1st, because it is March 18".
3. Sater does agree that there was a DoW, but the mere fact that he provides a different date contradicts your proposal to claim March 1st was the date the DoW took place. Not only that, but Sater goes as far as to disregard the March 1st decree even after writing that "Chile had imposed "a state of war" on Bolivia".
4. Your apologetic "analysis" of why a historian took one date over another is WP:OR. You're quick to claim it, but apparently don't know how to use it.
5. Sater, Caivano, Spence Robertson, Prudencio Lizon, and Abecia Baldivieso are actually quite clearly against a March 1st Bolivian DoW. So, Alex's comment is not WP:OR. Once again you're wrongly calling wolf.

Cheers.--MarshalN20 | 12:31, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Both Keysanger & Marshal are making valid points.

@Keysanger, I wouldn't say that "apparently" is ambiguous but it can communicate a lack of certainty. Here, Sater probably intends meaning (3) given in our wiktionary: according to what the speaker has read or been told. To me, it suggests that Sater previously believed that the March 1 decree was a formal declaration of war, and recently has learnt otherwise. It is interesting, to be sure, that he is a leading expert on the subject and he expresses uncertainty. It raises the question, how closely has even Sater studied this?

As far as using Misplaced Pages's voice to assert a March 1 declaration of war goes, I think you would have better luck arguing that March 14 is DoW; it seems the more reliable sources tend to that date or March 18.

Regarding what you wrote at my talk page I am afraid I can't believe that "announced on March 18" means "filed separately" - unless you have evidence from elsewhere of something being "filed" on March 18?

By the way, I just had another idea for a compromise wording. What if we said that on March 14 it was "formally announced that a state of war existed with Chile"? Alex Harvey (talk) 13:27, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

If I say yes, Keysanger will immediately say no. He is indirectly accusing me of having "an ideological agenda" (which goes against the WP:CONSPIRACY thing). With that mindset, no compromise can ever be achieved since every single attempt I make (and have made) for a compromise has been considered as part of an "ideological agenda".

I am willing to compromise with Alex's wording based on: (1) Bolivia made the announcement in Lima to foreign representatives and (2) the announcement was also provided to Chile's representative in Lima. Based on these 2 points, I can agree with the "formally announced that a state of war existed with Chile" on March 14 statement. Moreover, based on the sources provided, I am willing to compromise on the following as well:

News of the Chilean invasion reached Hilarión Daza on February 20, but he decided to postpone its mention until the end of ongoing carnival festitivities. On February 27, Daza made a public manifesto informing Bolivians about the invasion and calling for patriotic support. Later, on March 1, he 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, embargoed Chilean furniture, 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 retaliation from Bolivia". Chile interpreted the decree as a declaration of war, which historians and diplomats since then have considered a controversial decision as nowhere in the decree is war actually declared. Then, on March 14, Bolivia formally announced to representatives of foreign powers in Lima that a state of war now existed between herself and Chile; and called on Peru to activate the alliance treaty, arguing that the Chile's invasion constituted a casus foederis.

I hope this makes everyone happy. Do we have an agreement? Best of wishes.--MarshalN20 | 14:17, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Y I'll agree with your proposal @Marshall, and I hope than finally we can end this discussion without more "indirect" accusations of conspiracy. Greetings.Cloudaoc (talk) 16:59, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

To save Keysanger from objecting I would not support that proposal at all. That suggests that what is the orthodox view in most reliable sources (Bolivia declared war) is a Chilean POV, for which there is no evidence. Alex Harvey (talk) 00:50, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm basing the sentence on the Sivirichi and Caivano sources. I suppose what can be argued against it is that they're only 2 sources, but the evidence does exist. Unless any other idea can be presented, the last accepted paragraph (Proposal #2 in the RfC page) still stands as the option in contrast to Keysanger's proposal. EDIT: I'll add the "formally" word as Alex suggested into that proposal as well.--MarshalN20 | 01:35, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Hi Alex,

in your opinion, what means "which he announced on 18 March"? What means "which" in this sentence?. --Best regards, Keysanger (what?) 08:33, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Issue 4: Peru enter the conflict

The current version states without any references that:

• Peru entered the affair in 1879, initially attempting to mediate the dispute, but, when Chile invaded the Bolivian port city of Antofagasta on February 14, 1879, Bolivia sought the activation of its secret "Treaty of Mutual Defense" with Peru.

That is a very personal and biased view of the matter. Fact is that Peru signed the (offensive or defensive) Pact with Bolivia in 1873, and in 1872 Peru had declared that "Peru cannot be indifferent to the occupation of Bolivian territories" (Farcau, p.37-38). Moreover, Peru had nationalized the Salitreras and looked to build a monopol over the salitre and guano. --Best regards, Keysanger (what?) 10:27, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Issue 5: the 10 cent tax

The current version of the article states that:

• and Bolivia imposed a 10 cent tax on the Antofagasta Nitrate & Railway Company

The article doesn't mention that the 10 cents were a clear violation of the treaty of 1874. --Best regards, Keysanger (what?) 10:35, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Issue 6: defensive/ofensive secret pact

The current version of the article states that:

• Chile was not directly mentioned in the treaty text and was not informed about its existence, which led Chilean historiography to conclude that the treaty was aimed against Chile.

As Alex already said for the case of the Bdow "That suggests that what is the orthodox view in most reliable sources (Bolivia declared war) is a Chilean POV, for which there is no evidence.". --Best regards, Keysanger (what?) 11:17, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Issue 7: Occupation of Antofagasta

The current version of the article states that:

• According to Peruvian historian Jorge Basadre, the Chilean troops occupied the city with little resistance and experienced widespread support.

The sentence According to suggest that there are other opinions. There are not. --Best regards, Keysanger (what?) 11:17, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Issue 8: Cobija

The current version of the article states that:

• On March 1, 1879, after Chile's violent expulsion of Bolivian residents and authorities from the department of Cobija (Bolivia's main port),

There are no references for violent. --Best regards, Keysanger (what?) 11:17, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Issue 9: Acknowledging

The current version of the article states that:

• Acknowledging

and

That is poor English. --Best regards, Keysanger (what?) 11:17, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Issue 10: Grau

The current version of the article states that:

• Captain Miguel Grau Seminario (known as the "Knight of the Seas" due to his chivalry)

What is the encyclopedic worth of this information?. Should we also add that Patricio Lynch was called "Red Prince"?. That is Folklore and doesn't belong to the en:WP. --Best regards, Keysanger (what?) 11:17, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Issue 11:

The current version of the article states that:

• The naval battles of Iquique and Punta Gruesa gave a tactical victory to Peru: the blockade was defeated and the Chilean ships retreated or were sunk. Nevertheless, it was a pyrrhic victory; losing the Independencia, one of Peru's most important ships, was a fatal blow.

What means tactical victory? a defeat?. --Best regards, Keysanger (what?) 11:17, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Issue 12: War crimes

The current version has a new chapter "War Crimes" including subsections "Lynch's expedition", "Plunder of Lima" and "Repaso".

Neither Sater nor Farcau have a "war crimes" chapter and this is understandable because as stated in War crime Similar concepts, such as perfidy, have existed for many centuries as customs between civilized countries, but these customs were first codified as international law in the Hague Conventions of 1899 and 1907.. --Best regards, Keysanger (what?) 11:17, 23 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 ...

49. ^ Barros Arana, Diego (1890). "Arribo y desembarco de la expedición española: proclamación y jura de la indepedencia de Chile (Diciembre de 1817—Febrero de 1818)". Historia General de Chile. Vol. Volume XII. Santiago, Chile: Imprenta Cervantes. {{cite book}}: |volume= has extra text (help)
50. Encina, Francisco (1984). "La expedición de Osorio. Proclamación de la Independencia de Chile". Historia de Chile desde la Prehistoria hasta 1891. Vol. Volume XIV. Santiago, Chile: Editorial Ercilla. {{cite book}}: |volume= has extra text (help)
51. Fernández Ruiz, Roberto (September 17, 2006). "¿Dónde se firmó el Acta de la Independencia?". El Sur. Concepción, Chile.
52. "Destacados del año: 1973". 2002. Retrieved 2007. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= (help); Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1= (help)