Talk:Itata incident

Marshal Gard the Chase and the Multinational Force at Iquique
I fail to see any reason for the removal of any reference to any of the above. These 3 things are the basic incident, which was, a military action, and it is clear from the logs of the US Ships which anyone can read at NARA DC, that this was in fact a military intervension, that was later cleaned up and hushed up and swept under the rug and is now called a "diplomatic incident", which is at best only just a part of it. Maybe it is hiding behind the Baltimore Crisis, but it is the reason for the Baltimore Crisis, and Chile a few years ago was begining to make a fuss on the web through the use of one of their operatives who was a prof at one of the U of C colleges. We acted OK as a nation if you are trying to hush it up you just make it worse. John5Russell3Finley 15:36, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Gage v. WH Taft
Something here is eluding me, and it may not just be that I haven't read all of the sources necessary to understand this thing.

1) WH Taft was solicitor general at this time, that means that he was "in charge" of prosecuting the cases against the Itata, and that's what's in the Department of Justice Files at NARA DC, that because he was there visiting his father that he was going to handle the matter.

2) The additions about Gage read like he was in charge and like the President actually appointed him specifically to do the prosecuting of these cases.

So, was there an argument between Gage and the Tafts ? I know WH Taft's father was there too, what role did he play ? I know that the Atty Gen specifically asked in one of his cables to WH Taft about WH Taft's father, and I have been under the impression that he may have had some input. Are we to be left guessing that this messyness may have it's origin in some sort of a posturing or a vanity in Gage's autobiog ? John5Russell3Finley (talk) 00:06, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

link to 1908 election in the 2d to last section
I'm not clear how it got there, and I'm not clear what the purpose is for it, so could whomever put it there explain why it is there ? I'm not saying it doesn't belong, but the section to which it links has no mention of the Itata in it.

John5Russell3Finley (talk) 00:54, 5 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I've just taken this out - I reckon it was included because the text references Taft's later election as US President, but as you say that article doesn't mention the Itata case, and I suspect an interested reader would do better to proceed to the Taft article (already linked here) rather than straight to the election coverage itself. Gonzonoir (talk) 11:17, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

August 10 copy edit and Harrison quote
I've just given this a fairly thorough copy edit, added some citations and removed the tag. I'm not, though, an expert on this subject, so perhaps a knowledgeable editor could give it a once-over to check I've introduced nothing incorrect or misleading.

The change about which I'm least confident is the Benjamin Harrison quote, which this article used to have as "What ever you say, tell the truth!" I can't find any other evidence online for this quote (or for the perhaps likelier "Whatever you say" etc!), though Harrison is attributed with the much-cited "The bud of victory is always in the truth." I've assumed that's the quote the article meant to reference, though again I can find no evidence he said it in response to the Itata affair. So I've stuck a tag on and hope someone will change it if it's wrong.

Fascinating article chaps! Gonzonoir (talk) 11:23, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Today I removed the quote section. If we are going to get fussy about this then it will have to have a page and volume citation, or we should not have it at all. Unfortunately I don't have one for "What Ever You Say, Tell the Truth !" Which is from a telegram BH sent to at least one of his cabinet members when they were all making a fuss about how to spin what had turned out to be lies that Marshal Gard told after the Itata escaped. The place I found it originally was in Messages Received Atty Genl NARA which is a box type file in NARA DC. My guess is that this is what you could call original research, and though I think it is also in one of the Foreign Relations Synopsis Books that the GPO published each year, I no longer have any of this handy... John5Russell3Finley (talk) 23:23, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Back Ground Section
I noticed what I think I have read classified as often called "a bias towards the status quo ante". I divided one sentance at the end of the 1st paragraph into more neutral parts and reworded much of the 2d paragraph to try to put the section into a more neutral and less "pro-congressionalist" slant. John5Russell3Finley (talk) 23:47, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

San Diego
The Sources cited give Gard as source of the story John5Russell3Finley (talk) 00:01, 6 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Statements by Gard may be what he said but more independent sources are needed as to what actually happened; that's an example of why I tagged the article as requiring improved referencing.
 * On the subject of Gard, can anyone establish whether he was the same man as George E. Gard. Davidships (talk) 17:20, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Multinational Nitrate Interests
Would anyone else like to see a subsection in the background section, or maybe even a full section of its own on this topic ? John5Russell3Finley (talk) 17:49, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

The current article seems to only identify William Russell Grace as connected to this. Yes, he was connected, and later got all fussed up about trying to clean up the mess. However most of the sources I have seem to put the British John Thomas North in as the bad guy (maybe he was even the origin of the now famous euphmism ?). John5Russell3Finley (talk) 17:59, 15 May 2011 (UTC)