Talk:War of the Pacific/Archive 10

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


 * I corrected with:
 *  According to Peruvian historian Jorge Basadre, t The Chilean troops occupied the city with little resistance and experienced widespread support.

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)


 * HAHAHA...ehem. Are you serious?-- MarshalN20 | T a l k 20:08, 23 August 2011 (UTC)


 * There is no problem with the English grammar here; acknowledge is used in the sense 'recognize the existence, truth, or fact of'. Is Keysanger's concern that this is a mistranslation however? Alex Harvey (talk) 05:41, 24 August 2011 (UTC)


 * If two English native speakers assert it, I pull it back. --Best regards, Keysanger (what?) 13:21, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Great - resolved! Alex Harvey (talk) 15:28, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Issue 2: Part II: 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 | T a l k 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 | T a l k 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 [March] 18th, I received a verbal letter from minister Fierro [Chilean Minister of Foreign Affairs] 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" ["Official Diary"], 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 [March 1st] decree expedited by President Daza and notified to the diplomatic body [in Lima] 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 | T a l k 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 | T a l k 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 | T a l k 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 | T a l k 16:03, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

William Skuban replied today with a brief apology that he doesn't know why there is a discrepancy in the dates. He suggests Farcau might know why. On Keysanger's work above, I don't agree that it adds nothing new - at a minimum it shows that another historian without any reason to be biased believes that the March 1 decree was a declaration of war. It seems we are getting closer to understanding the proliferation of dates (and actually it doesn't seem to have anything to do with telegraph lines after all). As far as settling the disagreement, though, I tend to agree that 16 or 17 sources saying the same thing doesn't make that much difference. What might make a difference, though, would be if someone was able to dig out the "State Papers" referred to in Keysanger's German source. Perhaps I'll see if Farcau is contactable. Alex Harvey (talk) 07:41, 20 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 [don't] 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 | T a l k 14:31, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually what I really mean is that I think - as far as Wikipedia'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, Wikipedia 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 | T a l k 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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.[4] 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 (how many snipers?)
 * Category:Date of birth unknown

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


 * William F. Sater: "[Daza] declared that Chile had imposed "a state of war" on Bolivia. Apparently this [March 1st] 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 | T a l k 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 | T a l k 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 Wikipedia 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)

I have now written to Bruce Farcau and explained this dilemma to him. Hopefully he might respond with more on what happened on March 14. Alex Harvey (talk) 08:15, 22 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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.
 * "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.
 * "Apparently" is being used quite effectively by Sater: (Paraphrase) "It's not March 1st, because it is March 18".
 * 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".
 * 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.
 * 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 | T a l k 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 Wikipedia'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 | T a l k 14:17, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
 * 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 | T a l k 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)

email response
Farcau has responded and said that from his experience in the Foreign Service, a declaration of war is usually dated from when it is communicated to the diplomatic community, and that's why he chose March 14. He says Sater is using March 18 because that's when Chile acknowledged it. February 27 is when the legislature authorised the declaration of war (=decree ?) and he feels that is probably an unimportant detail due to the fact that Daza was a dictator and didn't technically need legislative authorisation. I have pressed him for an opinion of the opposite view that Bolivia didn't declare war and asked for permission to reproduce the correspondence. Alex Harvey (talk) 15:09, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Awesome. I like how Farcau stands by his position on the March 14 date. It's also good to note that his March 18 explanation (for Sater) has nothing to do with the alleged "correspondence issues" mentioned by Keysanger.
 * It would be great if you could ask him the similarities/differences in formally declaring war upon a country (similar to how Chile declared war on Peru and Bolivia) and announcing a state of war to the diplomatic community. Even better, if you could ask him what wording he would use (present him both proposals) in the article: "Bolivia declared war on March 14" or "Bolivia announced a state of war to the diplomatic community in Lima on March 14". Best regards.-- MarshalN20 | T a l k 15:33, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Great, well done Alex! --Best regards, Keysanger (what?) 14:47, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Farcau responded again without answering whether or not I can reproduce his correspondence - I suspect he doesn't have too much time to look at this and may not have noticed my question. Clearly he was not even aware that some believe that Bolivia didn't declare war - which I think for the purposes of Wikipedia is sufficient to establish this as a minority, possibly a fringe view. I presented him the four sources Marshal found that support his view and Farcau suggested that those holding this view must think that there needs to be a formal delivery of documents for an act to be a declaration of war. He said, however, there is no such historical requirement. He noted again that there was an act of legislation on Feb 27 authorising a declaration of war and an announcement on March 14 of the same. I have now asked if the text of the Act passed on Feb 27 survives. Alex Harvey (talk) 08:39, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
 * That Farcau was not aware of something (now he is) does not justify a fringe view. As I have mentioned countless of times, most of my sources are explicitly against Bolivia declaring war on March 1st (Hence why I have constantly been stating for the dates to be taken into better consideration). I have no sources which contradict any action of Bolivia in March 14. You should ask Farcau if he could provide another source which agrees with his February 27 Bolivian congress claim, as he is (so far in this discussion) the only known author to make such a declaration. Finally, it would also be great if you could please tell him which wording he would use in the article: "Bolivia announced a state of war" or "Bolivia declared war on Chile" for the March 14 date. My position is that the first one better fits the sources, but Farcau's opinion would pretty much "end the deal" in this case. Well, that is considering Keysanger loses his March 1st position.-- MarshalN20 | T a l k 14:28, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Farcau responded again. I think it is clear he had never heard of an alternate view that Bolivia didn't declare war. He doesn't know whether the text of the act of legislation from Feb 27 has survived and pointed out that it is 11 years since he wrote The Ten Cents War and he no longer has access to his research materials. He also made an interesting point. If the March 1 decree is worded relative to a "state of war" that already existed, this is almost exactly the same as with the wording of FDR's declaration of war against Japan after Pearl Harbour. In other words, I think, he doesn't see a difference between "announcing that a state of war exists" and "declaring war".
 * Given that Farcau has conceded that he doesn't remember all the finer details and no longer has access to the research materials I don't wish to press him with further questions. I believe it is quite clear that he has vouched for his own wording that Bolivia formally declared war on March 14. Moreover he has resolved the issue of discrepancy of dates and I now see that nearly all of Keysanger's sources do support a wording that Bolivia declared war on March 14.
 * We could raise an RFC still I suppose but I am pretty sure it will simply bring in more support for the wording "Bolivia declared war". Alex Harvey (talk) 02:27, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Given the new evidence, I propose the following:

"News of the Chilean military 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. According to historian Bruce Farcau, that same day the Bolivian legislature authorized the president to make a formal declaration of war upon Chile. On March 1, Hilarión 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'. Finally, on March 14, Bolivia formally announced to representatives of foreign powers in Lima that Chile's aggression forced a state of war to exist between both nations; and called on Peru to activate the alliance treaty, arguing that Chile's invasion of Bolivia's coast constituted a casus foederis."
 * Since Farcau proposes that state of war=declaration of war, I wikilinked it. That is all. In any case, for one final example: (1) Formally announcing marriage in a meeting with several people to a certain person A is not the same as (2) declaring one's love to person A. In case 1 the person is announcing a situation to a group, but has not directly announced it to person A, while in case 2 a direct declaration is made. I don't agree with Farcau's interpretation, but given his position I find the wikilink to the DoW to be enough.-- MarshalN20 | T a l k 02:51, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
 * How about

"News of the invasion reached Hilarión Daza on February 20, but he decided to postpone mention of it until the end of the carnival festivities. On February 27, Daza made a public manifesto informing Bolivians and calling for patriotic support. According to historian Bruce Farcau, that same day the Bolivian legislature authorized a formal declaration of war upon Chile. 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'. On March 14, Bolivia announced to representatives of foreign powers in Lima that a state of war now existed between both nations. Bolivia called on Peru to activate the alliance treaty, arguing that Chile's invasion constituted a casus foederis."
 * Alex Harvey (talk) 10:44, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
 * ✅ Shorter and to the point. I'm not happy to concede that Bolivia actually declared war, but I cannot oppose professional opinion. Hopefully in the future I shall be able to publish my own work on the matter. That being said, I suppose this will end this discussion? Has Keysanger said anything about losing his March 1st position or accepting Farcau's March 14 proposal? Thank you Alex for your dedication to improving this controversial article. Best of wishes.-- MarshalN20 | T a l k 13:11, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

What if we go with this proposal here and then assert that on April 5 Chile reciprocated and declared war? That way we can avoid the dreaded words "Bolivia declared war" but we can also make it clear - as consistent with expert opinion - that Chile's April 5 declaration of war was a reciprocation of Bolivia's March 14 declaration. Would that satisfy Keysanger and could Marshal et al. live with that? Alex Harvey (talk) 14:06, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Considering Keysanger has not replied to any of these discussions, and considering he has read all of these things (after all, he has had the time to come up with several other "issues"), I am concluding that he probably will not agree with any of your proposals (regardless of who agrees with them).
 * Regarding Chile reciprocating war on April 5, I'd like to note the following: (1) Chile declared war based on Peru's decision to let its congress discuss whether they should remain neutral or honor the treaty with Bolivia; (2) Bolivia is the one which declared war in reciprocation to Chile's invasion of Bolivia; (3) Chile's invasion of Bolivia without a prior DoW shows how much respect they had for Bolivia as an independent nation; (4) If Chiton magnificus is correct and "Keysanger is systematically pushing War of the Pacific things in favour of Chile," then stating that Chile reciprocated Bolivia's war announcement is playing directly into Keysanger's game of placing Chile as the victim. Whether Chiton is right or wrong, at this point I don't know and I won't make any reckless accusation. However, as far as it concerns the 18 sources I presented a while back, Chile is the primary aggressor (Chile's DoW on Bolivia and Peru is only notable as it officially got Peru into the war; however, the war itself had already started by Chile's invasion of Antofagasta).-- MarshalN20 | T a l k 15:53, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

The home straight

 * Hi folks,
 * We have discussed all sides of this issue and we surely agree that:
 * There was a Bolivian declaration of war
 * the decree was issued 1. March, was confirmed for the powers accredited in Lima on 14. March and published in Santiago on 18. March. Acc. to B. Farcau on 27 February the B. legislative issued a authorization to Daza for the war against Chile.
 * 20 out of 22 sources call the event "declaration of war" or "to declare war on Chile". The use "Bolivia declared the state of war" is unknown in the English language histography.
 * Farcau has never heard about a "No Bolivian declaration of war". Probably another fringe theory.
 * The United States declaration of war upon Japan 1941 uses the same wording as the Bolivian dow and it has been always considered a declaration of war: Declaring that a state of war exists between ….
 * As the discussion began, in the article version there was a mention of dows in the lede and in the "crisis" section.
 * Acording to this, unchallengeable, facts, my proposal is:


 * for "Lede":
 * "On March 1 1879 Bolivia's dictator Daza declared war on Chile. Chile soon learned that Peru and Bolivia had a secret alliance. These revelations resulted on April 5 in a Chilean declaration of war on Peru and Bolivia after Peru refused to declare neutrality."


 * for "Crisis":
 * "''According to historian Bruce Farcau, on February 27 Bolivian legislature issued an authorization for a declaration of war. On March 1, Daza issued a declaration of war in La Paz. Then, on March 14 Bolivia's foreign minister Serapio Reyes Ortiz announced in Lima 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."
 * "After the Bolivian declaration of war was published in Santiago on March 18, Peru's envoy Lavalle recognized the existence of the secret treaty and the Chilean government asked Peru to remain neutral. As the Peruvian government responded that Lima intended to honor its commitments to Bolivia, Chile declared the war on Peru and Bolivia on April 5."


 * Regarding the dreaded words, please remember that 20 out of 22 sources use the "dreaded words" "Bolivia declare/d war on Chile" or "Bolivian declaration of war". Do we want to censorship this sources?.


 * I see no issue to be discussed, the English text is OK, reviewed.
 * I would appreciate to stopp personal attacks and to concentrate in the solution of the problem.


 * --Best regards, Keysanger (what?) 15:50, 29 August 2011 (UTC)


 * You stubbornly keep cherry-picking the sources.
 * You stubbornly keep the same proposal over-and-over again without even paying the most minimal attention to what Alex Harvey suggests (you go as far as to cherry-pick his own statements).
 * Other than calling you stubborn (based on provable evidence), no personal attack has been made on you. On the other hand, you have accused me of: (1) stupidity, (2) source falsification, and (3) conspiracy. I am absolutely tired of your position and disgusted with your pretentions to make Chile look like a victim, a claim made upon your actions both by users Cambalechero and Chiton magnificus. Unless you cease your stubborn position, no improvement will be made on this article.-- MarshalN20 | T a l k 21:57, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree that this latest proposal - to repeat four times that Bolivia declared war - presents an appearance of little interest in reaching an amicable compromise. Alex Harvey (talk) 14:25, 30 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Other proposal:
 * for "Lede":
 * "On March 1 1879 Bolivia's dictator Daza declared war on Chile. Chile soon learned that Peru and Bolivia had a secret alliance. These revelations resulted on April 5 in a Chilean declaration of war on Peru and Bolivia after Peru refused to declare neutrality."


 * for "Crisis":
 * "''On March 1, Daza issued a declaration of war in La Paz. Then, on March 14 Bolivia's foreign minister Serapio Reyes Ortiz announced in Lima 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."
 * "After the Bolivian declaration was published in Santiago on March 18, Peru's envoy Lavalle recognized the existence of the secret treaty and the Chilean government asked Peru to remain neutral. As the Peruvian government responded that Lima intended to honor its commitments to Bolivia, Chile declared the war on Peru and Bolivia on April 5."


 * Once in lede and once in crisis, as much as Chile. Peru's dow is not mentioned. OK?. --Best regards, Keysanger (what?) 18:09, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

So, Alex took the trouble to talk to Farcau for no reason. I have conceded to Bolivia announcing a state of war on March 14 (even wikilinked the DoW article on "state of war"), which is what Farcau explained, and yet you keep pushing your March 1st position. I honestly don't understand you at all.-- MarshalN20 | T a l k 20:12, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes I'm confused too. I thought we all agreed that the DoW was March 14. Alex Harvey (talk) 01:13, 31 August 2011 (UTC)


 * That is no problem for a English writer like me:
 * for "Lede":
 * "On March 14 1879 Bolivia declared war on Chile. Chile soon learned that Peru and Bolivia had a secret alliance. These revelations resulted on April 5 in a Chilean declaration of war on Peru and Bolivia after Peru refused to declare neutrality."


 * for "Crisis":
 * "''On March 14 the Bolivian special plenipotentiary in Peru, foreign minister Serapio Reyes Ortiz announced Bolivia's declaration of war on Chile, dated March 1 by circular note, to the diplomatic Corps accredited to Lima and called on Peru to activate the alliance treaty, arguing that Chile's invasion constituted a casus foederis."
 * "After the Bolivian declaration was published in Santiago on March 18, Peru's envoy Lavalle recognized the existence of the secret treaty and the Chilean government asked Peru to remain neutral. As the Peruvian government responded that Lima intended to honor its commitments to Bolivia, Chile declared the war on Peru and Bolivia on April 5. Peru reciprocated on 6. April"


 * --Best regards, Keysanger (what?) 19:19, 31 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I like my lead proposal in "Issue 16: Occupation/Invasion" better, and I also like Alex's Crisis section proposal better.-- MarshalN20 | T a l k 01:21, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Keysanger, write a proposal that refers once to a Bdow. You obviously know (based on your issue titled "repeated" below) that repeated references to the Bdow bias the article towards overemphasis of it. Please observe that Sater regarded the March 1 decree as a "symbolic gesture" and not a formal declaration of war so let's let go this obsession with a March 1 Bdow and use March 14. Update the draft RFC with your proposal & please Marshal do likewise. Then we bring in outside opinions that should favour Keysanger's proposal. I don't want to discuss this any more. Alex Harvey (talk) 03:43, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Sure thing.-- MarshalN20 | T a l k 05:35, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Missing Alex's proposal
Hi Alex,

Would you please explain your claim?. My proposal includes one mention of the Bdow in the lede and one mention of the Bdow in the "crisis" section. And that is so much as the Chilean dow is mentioned in the lede and in the section "crisis". Would you be so kind to write a proposal that you can support and that mention the Bolivian declaration of war and don't hide it?. --Best regards, Keysanger (what?) 13:15, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Your proposal refers twice to a Bdow - I'll use the bold font:
 * "On March 14 the Bolivian special plenipotentiary in Peru, foreign minister Serapio Reyes Ortiz announced Bolivia's declaration of war on Chile, dated March 1 by circular note, to the diplomatic Corps accredited to Lima and called on Peru to activate the alliance treaty, arguing that Chile's invasion constituted a casus foederis. After the Bolivian declaration was published in Santiago on March 18, Peru's envoy Lavalle recognized the existence of the secret treaty and the Chilean government asked Peru to remain neutral. As the Peruvian government responded that Lima intended to honor its commitments to Bolivia, Chile declared the war on Peru and Bolivia on April 5. Peru reciprocated on 6. April"
 * Alex Harvey (talk) 13:49, 1 September 2011 (UTC)


 * And your proposal? How can we get a rid of? --Best regards, Keysanger (what?) 14:17, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I am attempting to mediate in this dispute - not have opinions of my own. If you wanted to get rid of the second "declaration" you could reword it "On March 18, Peru's envoy Lavalle recognized the existence of the secret treaty and the Chilean government asked Peru to remain neutral. As the Peruvian government responded that Lima intended to honor its commitments to Bolivia, Chile declared war on Peru and Bolivia on April 5. On April 6, Peru reciprocated". I think either proposal is fine and both communicate to the reader the same obvious facts: (1) Chile invaded Antofagasta; (2) Daza responded by declaring war. No matter how much either of you try to spin the matter the same facts are going to be understood. Alex Harvey (talk) 06:12, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Our problem is wording. I deleted from my original proposal the 27. February thing, the details of the 1. March decree, the hint to the carnival festivities and I don't intent to overvalue (repeat) the Bolivian declaration of war. That is no problem for me. Here is my proposal:
 * for "Lede":
 * "On March 14 1879 Bolivia declared war on Chile. Chile soon learned that Peru and Bolivia had a secret alliance. These revelations resulted on April 5 in a Chilean declaration of war on Peru and Bolivia after Peru refused to declare neutrality."


 * for "Crisis":
 * "''On March 14 the Bolivian special plenipotentiary in Peru, foreign minister Serapio Reyes Ortiz announced Bolivia's declaration of war on Chile, dated March 1 by circular note, to the diplomatic Corps accredited to Lima and called on Peru to activate the alliance treaty, arguing that Chile's invasion constituted a casus foederis."
 * "On March 18, Peru's envoy Lavalle recognized the existence of the secret treaty and the Chilean government asked Peru to remain neutral. As the Peruvian government responded that Lima intended to honor its commitments to Bolivia, Chile declared the war on Peru and Bolivia on April 5. Peru reciprocated on 6. April 1879."
 * short and well balanced. --Best regards, Keysanger (what?) 10:29, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
 * It might be short but if Marshal or others want to include the extra information - e.g. that Daza worded his decree relative to a preexisting state of war provoked upon him - how can you stop them? You can't - that's how. So why make a proposal that departs so radically from Marshal's? Alex Harvey (talk) 16:40, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
 * For example because MarshallN20's proposal doesn't include that Bolivia/Daza declared war on Chile as asserted by 22 reliable sources and Farcau confirmed it. Please, don't ask me to repeat this again.
 * There are rules about how to write an article and every one has to obey it. It is possible to write write why Daza declared war, but then we have to write why the other side occupied the port and if we say that 10 cents is too less, then we have to say that there was a treaty and so on and so on. Do we want to explain the whole crisis in only one paragraph?. I think no. We do it cronologically.
 * If we can't get an agreement, then we can post a RfC. But, honestly, I don't know what should be discussed there. We got finally all facts out on the table. We have only a wording problem.
 * --Best regards, Keysanger (what?) 23:42, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
 * You are not listening. So far, the dispute has been about whether or not Bolivia declared war. You wanted the article to say that Bolivia declared war. A reasonable alternative is still to say that "Bolivia announced that a state of war now existed". That is reasonable because, according to Farcau, it means the same thing. You are not happy with this, because you want the words "declared war". So why must you now compound the disagreement? Your new proposal removes all discussion of the contents of Daza's decree. We now have two problems: (1) declaration of war vs state of war; (2) include or exclude discussion of Daza's decree. If you disagree with Marshal's proposal - which we arrived at with input from a number of editors including yourself - you should tweak his proposal - not rewrite it with something completely different. Alex Harvey (talk) 10:21, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Here is an obvious alternative to the last proposal I made if we must use the words "declared war": "News of the invasion reached Hilarión Daza on February 20, but he postponed mention of it until the end of the carnival festivities. On February 27, Daza made a public manifesto informing Bolivians and calling for patriotic support. According to Bruce Farcau, the same day the Bolivian legislature authorized a formal declaration of war upon Chile. 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'. On March 14, Bolivia declared war in an announcement of the March 1 decree to representatives of foreign powers in Lima. Bolivia called on Peru to activate the alliance treaty, arguing that Chile's invasion constituted a casus foederis." Alex Harvey (talk) 12:05, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I assume that your proposal includes my lede and second paragraph of "Crisis". In this case I agree. ✅. --Best regards, Keysanger (what?) 14:17, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't agree with mentioning the following ("in an announcment of the March 1 decree"), because only one source actually states it.
 * The second thing, which I think Keysanger doesn't understand, is the way in which Bolivia "declared war" on Chile. The Bolivian POV at the time (From Daza and company) is that they were simply stating to the foreign representatives a given fact (Chile invaded the Litoral, therefore war existed). However, according to the explanation provided by Dr. Bruce Farcau, "announcing a state of war with country x" to foreign diplomats is, in essence, the same thing as a declaration of war. My (MarshalN20's) POV is that they are not the same, but I have agreed to concede that they are based on Farcau's expertise on the subject. That being accepted, it is appropiate to state that "Bolivia announced a state of war", but provide a wikilink to "state of war" (or "announced a state of war") to Declaration of war. Bolivia never actually word-by-word "declare war", and this is mainly because, as both Alex Harvey and other users have noted, Hilarion Daza kept playing around with words and avoided making any statement which could be taken as a word-by-word declaration of war.
 * In conclusion, Keysanger is still on the position that "announcing a state of war" =/= "declaration of war". However, Dr. Farcau has brought forth the position that they are essentially the same. Dr. Farcau's position holds more weight than Keysanger's position. I accept Farcau's position, Alex accepts Farcau's position, Cloudaoc agrees with the proposal based on Farcau's position (which Alex presented prior to this last one). Thereupon, I believe this discussion should be ended, the article edited with the information based on Farcau's proposal, and, if Keysanger keeps trying to change it despite the general consensus, he should be reported to the Administrator's noticeboard. That is the quickest way to end this discussion, and put an end to the story.-- MarshalN20 | T a l k 13:54, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Here is the last proposal. I have edited the sentence of March 14 to include "announced a state of war" into the wikilink of "declaration of war".
 * "News of the invasion reached Hilarión Daza on February 20, but he decided to postpone mention of it until the end of the carnival festivities. On February 27, Daza made a public manifesto informing Bolivians and calling for patriotic support. According to historian Bruce Farcau, that same day the Bolivian legislature authorized a formal declaration of war upon Chile. 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'. On March 14, in a meeting with foreign powers in Lima, Bolivia announced a state of war with Chile. Bolivia called on Peru to activate the alliance treaty, arguing that Chile's invasion constituted a casus foederis."
 * This is my last attempt for a complete agreement from everyone. Hopefully it will achieve this purpose.-- MarshalN20 | T a l k 14:01, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Keysanger, your second paragraph would replace the entire section "Peruvian mediation". The RFC will be about "should the article say 'Bolivia declared war' or 'Bolivia announced that a state of war now existed'. I would like to change my bolded sentence above to On March 14, Bolivia declared war in an announcement to representatives of foreign powers in Lima. If you are happy with that suggestion, I will start a new thread below and raise the RFC. Alex Harvey (talk) 11:39, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree to post a RfC with the question should the article say "Bolivia declared war" or "Bolivia announced that a state of war now existed". I would suggest us to concentrate on the declaration of war issue and not to overload the new thread with additional statements. --Best regards, Keysanger (what?) 07:05, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes I agree. Unless Marshal objects I'll change the RFC draft accordingly. Alex Harvey (talk) 08:55, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't object.-- MarshalN20 | T a l k 12:17, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Here is my simpler RFC draft. We would then line up Keysanger's 17 sources against Marshal's 4 underneath. Is everyone happy with this? Alex Harvey (talk) 12:53, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I disagree.
 * We agree about "should the article say "Bolivia declared war" or "Bolivia announced that a state of war now existed". Nothing about the 14 March. If we discuss about the 14 then we have to discuss about the 27, the 1. and then about 18. That will never end.
 * Which 17 and 4 sources did you choose?. I count 19 "declared war"'s. I included the repetition of country-data.com and globalsecurity.com. Please, tell me which are the 4 "reliable" sources of MarshalN20. I counted only 3.
 * In order to get a equal and fair presentation, please delete all wikilinks from the text. --Best regards, Keysanger (what?) 14:40, 5 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I think your RFC draft is good. I only disagree with claiming Keysanger has "17 sources" favoring his position as only a handful actually relate to the March 14 date. The rest of the sources either attribute a different date or something in general.
 * I don't understand Keysanger's position. It seems that which "will never end" is his own confusion about the dates. I'm assuming everyone else has already understood why it is important to mention the dates.
 * Finally, the wikilink is an important part of my proposal as it is based on Dr. Farcau's position of "announcing state of war = declaration of war" (in essence). I don't understand why Keysanger claims it to be unfair or unequal.-- MarshalN20 | T a l k 21:12, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
 * @Keysanger
 * there may be 18 as I may have forgotten to include the Skuban source we found at the end. Obviously, counting the same source twice just because you happened to find it at two URLs is inappropriate (so country-data & globalsecurity only count as 1 source).
 * we can drop "March 14" from your proposal and leave it in for Marshal's I suppose.
 * Marshal's 4 sources include 3 non contemporary works and 1 historian published in an opinion column La Razon. We will note in the discussion these caveats with Marshal's sources and likewise any caveats with your own sources.
 * agree with Marshal that the Wikilink is an inherent part of Marshal's proposal and can't be removed. I can "no wiki" it if you like.
 * @Marshal
 * We now understand the discrepancy in the dates - Feb 27 is the day the legislature passed an act, Mar 1 this was announced as an internal decree, Mar 14 it was announced to the diplomatic corp and Mar 18 it was acknowledged/published in Chile. It becomes a technicality as to how the DoW is dated in historical sources.  Thus all of Keysanger's 18 or so sources support the basic proposition that Bolivia declared war.  If you still don't agree then you are free to make a disclaimer underneath the RFC declaring yourself as an involved party but I think it would be misleading to suggest that Keysanger's only support are those sources that explicity refer to a March 14 DoW.
 * So can we proceed on this basis? Alex Harvey (talk) 06:49, 6 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Which part of the User:Alexh19740110/Draft RfC Bdow is the correct RfC?.
 * What about "proposal #1", "proposal #2", and the first "Discussion". What is "Invasion of Litoral Department (The War)"?. The trash isn't needed and should be erased before.
 * It must be said wich are the sources (bookname, author, page, publisher) and the relevant text passages in order the editors self can decide about the credibility of the statement. The Peruvian newspaper "La Razon" is not the same as "Andean Tragedy" of Sater. So we will avoid embarrassing discussions during the debate of the draft. I added already my 19 sources. I hope you agree.
 * Before I agree and in order to avoid mistake we should erase any divagations (obsolete proposals, old discussions, funny list of sources, never existed invasions) from the RfC draft, add MarshalN20's list of sources, update the final draft proposal and add a wikilink to "Bolivia declared war on Chile".
 * I will use this oportunity to thank you for your tenacious efforts to resolve the question and to assure you my complete support.
 * --Best regards, Keysanger (what?) 07:59, 6 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I disagree with your perspective, Alex. A source which states, "Bolivia declared war on March 18" should not be used to support a statement which claims that "Bolivia declared war on March 14." The only way all 19 sources could "support" Keysanger's proposal would be if all dates were erased (which is what he wants to do, apparently).
 * Refering to extra content in the RfC as "the trash" is really insulting. I also don't understand why Keysanger keeps complaining about Peru's "La Razon" and why this is even relevant on this discussion. In any case, I don't understand many of the things he does.-- MarshalN20 | T a l k 12:53, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes I agree that the insults are most unhelpful.
 * @Keysanger,
 * I have gone through your list and found 17 sources again although there is a Skuban source you can add somewhere. You were counting Sater twice - two separate books by Sater should not be counted as two reliable sources because they're from the same author.  You were also counting Lavalle - a primary source.  While it's fair enough to make a note of what Lavalle says, it's not reasonable to also count Lavalle in your tally.
 * The plan is to copy the second draft section of the RFC to the bottom of this talk page and then mark it as an active RFC. So no one will see the earlier proposals.
 * @ Marshal:
 * I still don't agree. It seems that this would be to use a technicality to disqualify a source.  You made an example of marriage earlier so I'll extend your example.  Imagine two people were married on March 1 but for whatever reason they didn't sign the marriage contract until March 14.  Some people are going to say they were married on March 1 because that's the date they had the wedding.  Others will say that, technically, they were married on March 14 because that's the date they signed the marriage contract.  All sources, nonetheless, could be used to support the basic proposition that the two people were married.  Anyhow, as I say, your objection can be noted in the discussion so that uninvolved editors see it.
 * Alex Harvey (talk) 15:26, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi Alex,
 * you are right regarding the second book of Sater.
 * But I corrected a little error: the given page 129 of the first book belongs actually to another book of Sater and Collier A history of Chile, 1808-2002. Since in the book is also another author, Collier, involved, it is fair to include it.
 * The book of Lavalle includes an exhaustive study (65 pages) of Lavalle's mediation by the Peruvian historian Félix Denegri Luna . This part is a secondary source and can be used in Wikipedia. It contains very important infomation e.g. about the post and telegraph lines in use and the delay of the news, besides the date of the BDOW. I think it must be added.
 * I also added Skuba. I think 17 or 19 are enough. If someone arise doubt then I can deliver another 10 sources.
 * OK, we will use Farcau's date for the BDOW.
 * I agree. --Best regards, Keysanger (what?) 21:13, 6 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I trust your explanation Alex, so I will back down from my position. Nonetheless, if it doesn't bother anyone, I would like to raise one small question to the RfC: Should the dates be mentioned in the paragraph or not? Keysanger is against, but other users are in favor of presenting the dates. I suppose this is a great time to also put that to an end with a comment. Best of wishes.-- MarshalN20 | T a l k 00:16, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I think Keysanger is only against confusing the RFC with mention of the dates. Keysanger has just said he is happy to use Farcau's date for the BDOW.  So I think we're all in agreement on that point and no need to add it to the RFC. Alex Harvey (talk) 05:53, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree to mention the dates in the paragraph. --Best regards, Keysanger (what?) 09:20, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Hi Alex,

MarshalN2's list of sources states that there was "not a formal declaration of war". But the question is wheter the article should say " Bolivia announced that a state of war now existed with Chile".

Farcau says that to declare a state of war is that same as to declare a war, but MarshalN2 says it is not a declaration of war. Do you understand?. --Best regards, Keysanger (what?) 16:54, 7 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Two lists of sources exist. The first, with 6, states that no Declaration of War took place. The second, with 16, directly supports the wording "state of war" either by sourcing that Daza/Bolivia announced/proclaimed a state of war, or stating that a state of war existed given the Chilean invasion/blockade of Antofagasta.
 * Dr. Farcau's explanation is not being contested. However, it should be noted that Chile's invasion of Bolivia's Litoral Department is also, in essence, a declaration of war.-- MarshalN20 | T a l k 02:08, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

It's high time for the RfC
Hi Alex,

I think it's high time for the RfC. Let's other editors say a word.

MarshalN20's undecidedness has to do with the difficulties of his undertaking.

He wants actually say that there wasn't a Bolivian Declaration of War at all. But, there is no evidence supporting his theory. 4 out of 5 of his sources are biased Peruvian or Bolivian unknown historians trying to push their nacionalistic POV by hook or by crook. Richard Gibbs statement was given on 12 March 1879, that is before the announcement on 14 March.

In order to evade this hard facts, he seems to be ready to accept the "declare state of war" option and hopes then, by means of semantics and sophisms, to transform the "declare state of war" in a "it is not a Declaration of War" as intended already (Bolivia never actually word-by-word "declare war").

Probably, he knows that it will not work and therefore he is unsteady. What can we do to help MarshalN20?. Let's get it over with!. --Best regards, Keysanger (what?) 12:50, 8 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Your patronizing attitude is insulting, to say the least. When will you be ready to discuss things without insulting me?
 * There was no actual declaration of war. All Bolivia did was announce to the international community that a state of war existed. In technical terms, it's not the same thing. That's the basic point. As I made my explanation to Alex, the letters "A" and "a" are (in essence) the same thing, but technically they are not. Therefore, Dr. Farcau is correct in stating that announcing a state of war is essentially the same as a declaration of war, but technical differences do exist.
 * I don't even know why I bother explaining this to you.-- MarshalN20 | T a l k 14:22, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes agree again about the insults. What Keysanger seems oblivious to is the more he talks like this the more other editors will support Marshal's proposal - which is quite reasonable anyway.
 * @Marshal, I have struck quite a number of your sources from the "supports 'state of war'" list because they simply don't relate to what we are discussing. After war is declared, of course a "state of war" exists until the end of the war.  See the Mirriam-Webster's defintion of "state of war" a : a state of actual armed hostilities regardless of a formal declaration of war b : a legal state created and ended by official declaration regardless of actual armed hostilities and usually characterized by operation of the rules of war.  So it can mean either.  I also agree that while the Gibbs source definitely says that the March 1 decree wasn't a declaration of war, it obviously doesn't contain his opinion about the March 14 announcement.  So I believe you still have only 4 sources and it should be described as a "minority view". Alex Harvey (talk) 14:54, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

One last Compromise
The best solution to this discussion remains that of having everyone be happy with the product. The RfC will, ultimately, arbitrarily determine one point or the other. For the sake of whatever may be left of "Good Faith" in this discussion, I propose we combine both competing concepts into one. The following is my attempt at such a combination: "News of the invasion reached Hilarión Daza on February 20, but he decided to postpone mention of it until the end of the carnival festivities. On February 27, Daza made a public manifesto informing Bolivians and calling for patriotic support. According to historian Bruce Farcau, that same day the Bolivian legislature authorized a formal declaration of war upon Chile. 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'. On March 14, Bolivian foreign minister Serapio Reyes Ortiz essentially declared war through an announcement to foreign representatives in Lima of Bolivia's state of war with Chile. Bolivia called on Peru to activate the alliance treaty, arguing that Chile's invasion constituted a casus foederis." Is this an agreement for all parties?-- MarshalN20 | T a l k 21:25, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
 * That's not going to work. "Essentially" is a weasel word.  Alex Harvey (talk) 00:53, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I've taken it to the Language Board. The discussion can be followed here .-- MarshalN20 | T a l k 02:03, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi MarshalN20, I disagree your proposal because "essentially" is a weasel word.
 * I want to remember to other editors that User:Alexh19740110/Draft RfC Bdow isn't a personal sandbox but a draft to be jointly prepared and that every change has to be presented to discussion and approved. I beg the person who wrote the comment under the text of the RfC to move his comment to this talk page or to delete it. Thanks in advance. --Best regards, Keysanger (what?) 08:24, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I was alerted to this issue at the Language Reference Desk. As I understand these events, it seems not quite right to say outright that "Bolivia declared war". While the Bolivian legislature had authorized a war declaration, it had not actually voted to declare war. Likewise, the Bolivian authorities do not seem to have made a formal declaration of war. Rather, their announcement that war had broken out was interpreted by others as a declaration of war. So, I think that Bolivia did not declare war directly or intentionally. Rather, its actions were interpreted to amount to a declaration of war. In this context, I don't think "essentially" is the best word. Essentially refers to essence, or the intrinsic and fundamental nature of a thing. The intrinsic or fundamental nature of Bolivia's action was not to declare war; rather, its essence was to inform the diplomatic community of the state of hostilities and to request the assistance of its ally. However, its effect was to create the impression that war had been declared. Therefore, I would replace "essentially" with "in effect". Marco polo (talk) 14:01, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Hello. I am a professor of Latin American history at Texas A&M University. "MarshalN20" asked me to post up my opinion on the subject. If you don't mind, I would like to keep my status as anonymous. I have studied and taught the "War of the Pacific" (I prefer the name "Saltpeter War") in my course curriculum at the university. Something which could possibly help you resolve this matter is understanding the different perspectives in the conflict. The government of Chile attributed Hilarion Daza's decree of March 1st as a declaration of war, which is what they later published in Santiago on March 18. That is their view on the subject, and it should be mentioned in the article per se. Chile then published their opinion on circular notes, and effectively managed to "manipulate" (If you don't mind the word) the Western world's opinion in favor of their interpretation. However, a dissenting opinion has always existed. I provided "MarshalN20" with the Richard Gibbs source. Gibbs was ambassador to Peru during these years, and is an excellent first-hand source of the conflict. As I suppose you know by now, Gibbs explained to the US government that Bolivia's March 1st decree was not a declaration of war. Other sources exist which also provide this opinion (I think some have been provided already). Bruce Farcau and William Sater have been the most prominent modern American historians to also identify the March 1st decree as a "no declaration of war", but Italian Caivano also had this opinion way back in the day. Yes, it was a violent decree that deeply hurt Chile's national pride (Chile felt insulted that Bolivia, a "backwards nation" would dare kick out Chilean citizens); but it was not a declaration of war (I would not even consider it "informal"). Now to March 14. Peru had requested Bolivia to keep quiet while Peruvian mediators worked out the issue, and Bolivia "promised" (probably had their fingers crossed) that it would not make noise. Yet, on March 14 the Bolivian representative in Peru made an announcement to the diplomatic body in Lima (which included America, France, England), in which they formally announced the existence of a state of war with Chile. Announcing = declaring, they are both synonyms. The difference is, yet again, in the perspective given the historical context. Remember that Bolivia saw itself as the "victim" (arguably, they were just as guilty of the situation; Peru seems to be the only one that actually wanted peace, but even that's arguable), and Chile as the "aggressor". Farcau attributes this as a declaration of war, and up to a certain point he is right. Why? Because publicly "announcing a state of war" has, historically speaking, always been the "substitute" to declaring war when the nation making the announcement feels as the victim. Two examples: When Japan attacked Pearl Harbor, the United States consequently announced a state of war with Japan. A little closer to this conflict, the Chaco War, Paraguay felt that Bolivia was invading its territory, so they also announced the existence of a state of war with Bolivia. In this Saltpeter War case, I believe that the best solution is to use the exact wording presented by the Bolivians (In any case, it makes little difference, but it provides a "correct" context of the situation). Anyone who reads that "Bolivia announced the existence of a state of war" is going to know what it means. Chile did not interpret this March 14 announcement as a declaration of war (remember that they took the March 1st decree for that). The questions you may ask: Why did Bolivia do it? They wanted to prevent Chile from obtaining war materials. Did it work? No; nobody really took Bolivia seriously. Why is it important? This is when Bolivia publicly asked Peru to honor their alliance; basically, it "killed" the Peruvian diplomatic mission in Chile. Suspicions existed in Chile that Peru and Bolivia had an alliance, but the public did not know for certain until Bolivia admitted it (The Chilean government already knew about it, of course). Later Chile published the March 1 decree in Santiago on March 18, and that further angered Chileans. It all adds up to Chile's final demand (an "ultimatum" if you want) on Peru to step away from the matter ("declare its neutrality"), and Peru (for whatever foolish reason) responded that they would let their Congress decide both proposals (honor the alliance or accept Chile's demand for neutrality). Then you have the April 5 declarations of war (Chile made 2 separate declarations, one for Peru and another for Bolivia), and the start of the blockades and full-scale campaigns. War, of course, started when Chilean troops took Antofagasta; but afterwards there was this "war of words" period which ended up complicating the situation more than helping resolve it. This may be too long, but I hope it helps resolve your problems. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.91.173.221 (talk) 15:02, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
 * ✅Thank you professor for your intervention in this important discussion, and your explanation about the so-called Bdow is quite clear (at least for me), so, I'll agree completely with your explanation and this should be inserted in the article to keep it with a NPOV. Greetings. Cloudaoc (talk) 15:13, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I would also like to thank the professor for the helpful suggestions. I take this as a strong vote in favour of the compromise proposal "On March 14, Daza announced that a state of war existed with Chile".  I would like to repeat what the professor has just said, "Anyone who reads that 'Bolivia announced the existence of a state of war' is going to know what it means".  It ought to satisfy informed Chilean and Peruvian/Bolivian readers alike.  Maybe have some time to think about this. Alex Harvey (talk) 16:24, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't see any new facts in the contribution. All sources given in the long contribution (Gibbs, Farcau, Sater and Caivano) has been already in discussion for a long time and without published works his interpretations are original research. --Best regards, Keysanger (what?) 16:53, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Keysanger, obviously there is no new facts, and the professor suggestions can't be discarded as original research because he isn't a Wikipedian editor. Cloudaoc (talk) 17:00, 9 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Hi Cloudaoc,
 * What do you think is this, and that?. They are editions made by an Wikipedia editor.
 * We have already established that there are no new sources. Caivano is a Italian inmigrant in Peru and an ardent Anti-Chilean writer. We know that Sater (page 39 Thus, Daza's declaration of war was a godsend also page 42 in March he suddenly declared war on Chile) as well as Farcau (page 42: although the formal declaration would not be forthcomming until 14 March. page 43 Lavalle departed Lima on 22 February, well before the Bolivian declaration of war, but nothing irreversible was to occur for some time... and in page 44 ...Word have now reached Santiago of the Bolivian declaration of war, and, ..) use the wording "declaration of war" and Gibbs's statement was written on 12 March, two days before the announcement in Lima.
 * Is it worth to go through the interpretations given by the incognito editor?. I think no. We have heard every one of them at least once from editor MarshalN20. I will not bore you repeating the chain of interpretations, suggestions and claims done without any source as reference. They are simply original research and has been refuted with reliable sources, page, author and relevant passage of the text.
 * I would suggest to initiate the RfC. --Best regards, Keysanger (what?) 18:14, 9 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I cite, T.Caivano, page 77:
 * Para quien conoce el carácter de los chilenos, es indudable que no se hubieran atrevido á hacer y decir cuanto hicieron y dijeron contra Italia y los italianos, si hubiesen comparecido en las aguas del Pacífico un par, no más, de buenos buques italianos. ¡Oh cómo hubieran sido entonces mansos y melifluos!
 * How neutral is Caivano?. --Best regards, Keysanger (what?) 19:00, 9 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Inadvertedly, we have had a series of RfC's from people uninvolved to the discussion. According to WP:RFC, "Requests for comment (RfC) is an informal, lightweight process for requesting outside input, and dispute resolution, with respect to article content, user conduct, and Wikipedia policy and guidelines." We have received the outside input from:
 * User:Marco polo ("The intrinsic or fundamental nature of Bolivia's action was not to declare war; rather, its essence was to inform the diplomatic community of the state of hostilities and to request the assistance of its ally. However, its effect was to create the impression that war had been declared.")
 * User:Tagishsimon ("I see that "that same day the Bolivian legislature authorized a formal declaration of war upon Chile", so that appears to be the declaration of war concern covered to any reasonable level of satisfaction.")
 * These users have expressed their opinion on the subject, and they all agree in some form or another that "Bolivia announced a state of war" is good (or not even necessary).
 * Moreover, I agree with Alex and the Texas A&M professor (whose privacy should be respected) in that "Anyone who reads that 'Bolivia announced the existence of a state of war' is going to know what it means". He has contributed a professional opinion on the matter, a valid suggestion, and it makes little sense for Keysanger to attack him.
 * Finally, Keysanger's attack on Caivano is nothing more than an ad hominem fallacy. The statement you cite from him is in response to Chile's attack (including murder) of Italian immigrants living in Peru. This includes Chilean troops murdering unarmed Italian firemen. Hence why Caivano writes that "if a couple of Italian ships were in the waters of the Pacific" then the situation would have been different.
 * Along with the 2 univolved editors, we can also add the opinions of Cambalechero, Cloudaoc, Alex, myself, and even Dr. Bruce Farcau. All of us see the statement "Bolivia announced a state of war" as sufficient and understandable.-- MarshalN20 | T a l k 20:17, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Exactly, we are not obligated to satisfy Keysanger's requirements about the content of the article, because no one can own it. All of us agree that the statement "Bolivia announced a state of war" is not only clear, but also a well-proven and documented fact. As everyone here, Keysanger must accept the general consensus about this issue. GreetingsCloudaoc (talk) 21:58, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
 * In my mind, the professor's input has added new facts, namely, (1) that Chile's version of history had the March 1 decree as a declaration of war and moreover that Chile did not see the March 14 announcement as a DoW. (2) It adds a professional opinion to support what I privately suspected, i.e. that Western historians have probably passed on the Chilean version without critical examination.  E.g. Farcau apparently wasn't aware of an alternative view, and Skuban conceded that the matter was completely outside the scope of his own investigation.  I would say that it is likely that Sater used the word "apparently" because he too had only recently become aware of Gibbs and the view that the March 1 decree was not a DoW after all.  Finally, I would like to point out that Marshal's compromise wording really is a compromise; that is, it is a big departure from what he originally wanted to say (i.e. that there was no Bolivian declaration of war).  I believe that sooner or later we are going to have to accept that our compromise is the best wording we can come up with.  Alex Harvey (talk) 06:36, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi Alex,
 * I disagree with you. What do you mean with "professional opinion"?. Can you tell me wich are the works published by 165.91.173.221?. It is for me the opinion of a Wikipedia editor, no more and no less. You know very well the Wikipedia rules. I cite WP:SOURCES:
 * Base articles on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Source material must have been published (made available to the public in some form); unpublished materials are not considered reliable.
 * Furthermore we have seen that the use of the 1, 14 or 18 March doesn't change the essence of the BDOW. They are phases of the fulfillment of a international act.
 * Don't get confused with fringe and mainstream: the fact that Farcau, Sater and Skuban and the most of the historians never considered MarshalN20's theory is the proof that 165.91.173.221's presentation is a WP:FRINGE theory. What is published is the histography, what isn't published is the fringe.
 * My proposal is "Bolivia declared war on Chile". We can add a reference (footnote) and tell them interested reader that there are a minority view. I agree to this solution. A contrariwise solution violates the WP rules.
 * If MarshallN20 insists to present a fringe theory as mainstream, then we have to initiate the Request for Comment.
 * --Best regards, Keysanger (what?) 09:26, 10 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I really wish Keysanger would stop being so aggressive towards the professor (WP:BITE). I have asked the professor to at least post up his last name, but he does not want to. As he told me, if Wikipedia allows its members to remain anonymous, then he should have that right as well. Keysanger's attitude is not of much help to make him feel comfortable.
 * The professor has only provided a professional opinion on the subject. We are not citing him as a source. Assuming WP:GF, the purpose of his professional opinion is to help. He has not provided any new sources, but what he has provided is his expert interpretation of those sources.
 * I completely agree with Alex's understanding. Given all the "anti-war" sources for the March 1st decree, Keysanger can't claim it to be a fringe theory (even if a minority view, which it's not, a mere footnote cannot cover it). Perhaps what would make Keysanger happy is if we wrote that "Chile interpreted the March 1st decree as a declaration of war"? I don't mind that at all, and it would be an accurate representation backed by two sources (Caivano and Sivirichi); no source contradicts them (No source claims that Chile did not interpret the March 1st decree as a declaration of war).
 * As Alex mentions, I have departed from my past position in favor of the compromise. At this point this matter has turned more towards Keysanger accepting the compromise text and letting us all continue living our lives in peace. 6 editors have already expressed their opinion in favor of the compromise text. The whole world can't comment on this issue for Keysanger to finally be at ease.-- MarshalN20 | T a l k 14:24, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
 * @Keysanger, we have no reason to doubt that the professor is anything other than what he says he is - a professor of history who teaches a course in this subject. He appears to know more about this particular issue than Farcau did - which is fair enough since Farcau's book is now 10 years old.
 * Your proposal hides reliably sourced information in order to make a complicated situation appear simple. The reality is that on March 14, Bolivia announced that a state of war existed with Chile.  You know that is really what happened, and we all do.  Marshal's sources show that Chile's minister Godoy reported this exact same wording - "Bolivian minister in Lima sent a circular to the diplomatic team, announcing a state of war between Chile and Bolivia".  Moreover, Marshal has provided at least 8 or so reliable sources which have adopted the same wording as he proposes.  There is nothing "fringe" about his proposal.  Now it is true that more sources adopt your preferred wording, but when we then consider there are four sources arguing that there was no Bdow at all, and we consider Farcau's opinion that "announcing a state of war" and "declaring war" are historically synonymous, it is clear that our compromise proposal is a better representation of the full range of materials we have in front of us - especially if it is your hope that Marshal's theory of no Bdow stays out of the article altogether.
 * But I know you won't be convinced by this. So instead, please look at how much consensus is already against you and ask yourself how can an RFC possibly resolve it in your favour now?  When there was just you & Marshal, getting outside opinions made sense.  Now it seems to me that we have Marco polo, Tagishsimon, the anonymous professor, IP 90.197.66.202, the various Peruvian editors, and myself all clearly in favour of Marshal's proposal.  An RFC will bring in at most another 2 or 3 opinions, none of whom will be experts in this history.  In the best case, we'll have the same deadlock.  In the more likely case, it will simply resolve in Marshal's favour.  In the worst case, they're going to suggest that Marshal has gone further in his compromise than he needed to.  Alex Harvey (talk) 15:19, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

continue
I posted a to WP:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard a question about the posibility of consider the contribution of the IP editor as reliable source or professional opinion.

I want to say clear and loud that I don't question the person of the editor or his contribution but its use as deciding voice in the discussion.

Please, give the board a little time to comment my question. --Best regards, Keysanger (what?) 16:31, 10 September 2011 (UTC)


 * The way you set up the question is a blatant break of WP:GAMING. We are not using the professor as a source. We are only taking into account his expert opinion, which is nothing more than a well-informed opinion meant to help resolve the problem. Help is the key word. Just because you don't agree with his help doesn't make it right for you to make a big issue out of it.
 * Your continously aggressive attitude toward him (which keeps breaking WP:BITE) makes it far less likely for him to even provide another contribution to this discussion. Thanks a lot Keysanger.-- MarshalN20 | T a l k 17:59, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

The noticeboard considers unanimously that only published works can be considered as reliable source, professional or diciding opinion. The opinion of the IP editor is very valuable as mine and your but it hasn't the weight of Sater, Farcau, Lang, or Besadre's opinion. They are professional, experts and their opinion is deciding over the issue. All of them say that THERE WAS A BOLIVIAN DECLARATION OF WAR (please excuse my scream) and that is the mainstream according to the WP rules and the wording of the article must be in line with this fact of histography.

I presented you my proposal :"Bolivia declared war on Chile". We can add a reference (footnote) and tell them interested reader that there are a minority view in Peru and Bolivia, etc, etc. Such a solution would spare us the long way through the RfC, it would last longer and stable and would be WP:V and WP:NPOV rules conform. Alex, MarshalN20, what do you think about?. --Best regards, Keysanger (what?) 20:39, 10 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I don't know whether you are purposely lying or have completely misunderstood the purpose of the RSN (Reliable Source Noticeboard). We are not using the professor's opinion as a source. All you have obtained from your post are further insults on the professor. If your goal was to scare him away, then you have done quite a good job at it. Many of these professors barely know how to properly use modern technology aside from e-mails, and for them places such as Wikipedia are new outlets of information.
 * Unanimous concensus on the noticeboard is that the professor's opinion can't be used as a source. We are not using the professor's opinion as a source. His contribution was simply that of helping us resolve the issue. Even if we discard his contribution, 5 other editors have already expressed their support for the compromise statement. Going back to what the professor wrote: "Anyone who reads that 'Bolivia announced the existence of a state of war' is going to know what it means". Dr. Farcau provided a similar explanation. Everyone agrees with their interpretation...everyone except you.
 * I do not agree with your proposal.-- MarshalN20 | T a l k 21:13, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Keysanger, here is the situation so far:


 * On March 14, Bolivia announced that a state of war existed with Chile.

✅ MarshalN20 ✅ Cloudaoc ✅ 165.91.173.221 "professor" ✅ Tagishsimon ✅ Marco polo ✅ 90.197.66.202 ✅ Alex Harvey


 * On March 14, Bolivia declared war on Chile

✅ Keysanger

Do you want to raise an RFC? If so, I'll do it now. Alex Harvey (talk) 03:03, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

another suggestion for compromise
Marshal, I note that Tagishsimon made an important observation: I see that "that same day the Bolivian legislature authorized a formal declaration of war upon Chile", so that appears to be the declaration of war concern covered to any reasonable level of satisfaction. I agree with this statement, although I am not entirely comfortable with attributing the assertion to Farcau, which raises doubt in the reader as to the certainty of the assertion. Can you ask the professor if he knows anything more about the February 27 act of legislature? Farcau said he couldn't remember any more than what was in his book. Alex Harvey (talk) 06:02, 11 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Hi Alex,


 * Please, let's go to the RfC. Here is the situation so far:

 ✅ William F. Sater in "Andean Tragedy", states:
 * 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.
 * page 39 Thus, Daza's declaration of war was a godsend ..., also page 42in March he suddenly declared war on Chile

✅ Simon Collier,William F. Sater, "A history of Chile, 1808-2002",
 * page 129 Pinto refused, perhaps believing that Daza would accept a return to the "status quo ante". But Daza did not: two weeks after the Chilean occupation of Antofagasta, Bolivia declared war

 "Chile and the War of the Pacific"‎ - Page 9 by William F. Sater - History - 1986 - 343 pages Two weeks after Chile occupied the disputed territory, Daza declared war.[Sater already listed] ✅ "Documentary History of the Tacna-Arica dispute, University of Iowa studies in the social sciences, Vol. 8", by William Jefferson Dennis, here, page 69: ''On March 14 Bolivia advised representatives of foreign powers that a state of war existed with Chile. ... Godoi advised President Pinto that this move was to prevent Chile from securing armaments abroad ...''

''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.'' ✅ "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 ..." ✅ "Wars and Peace Treaties, 1816-1991", By Erik Goldstein, page 182: As result of this action Bolivia declared war on Chile (1.March) ✅ "The history of Chile" By John Lawrence Rector, page 100: Bolivia declared war and attemted to expel all Chileans from its territory ✅ onwar.com: Bolivia then declared war on Chile and called upon Peru for help.</li> <li>✅ country-data.com: Bolivia, in alliance with Peru, declared war on Chile on March 1, ...'</li> <li>✅ andrewclem.com: ... , but Bolivia declared war on Chile and made known its “secret” alliance with Peru in March, ...''</li> <li> globalsecurity.com: Bolivia, in alliance with Peru, declared war on Chile on March 1,...[Replication from www.country-data.com]</li> <li>✅ Encarta: Bolivia declared war and was joined by Peru, a partner in a secret alliance.</li> <li>✅ "The geopolitics of security in the Americas: hemispheric denial from Monroe ..." by Martin Sicker here: and Bolivia declared war on 14 February 1879 ...</li> <li>✅ "A history of Chile‎" - Page 326, by Luis Galdames, Isaac Joslin Cox - History - 1941 - 565 pages: ''The government of Chile refused to accede to this. Meanwhile Peru mobilized its army rapidly, Bolivia declared war against Chile, and the press of those ...''</li> <li>✅ "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 ...".</li> <li>✅"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, ...</li> <li>✅"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.''</li> <li>✅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 Wikipedia 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 [ Chilean Minister for Foreign Affairs ] 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</li>

<li>✅Jorge Besadre, "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 ['s declaration of war] 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 [Bolivia] failed because in accordance with the treaty such act [declaration of war] should have been done in agreement between both [Peru and Bolivia]. 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 ...</li>

<li>Herbert Millington, 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, page 25: "The Bolivian war manifesto was issued on February 27, 1879, …"[unspecific mention]</li> <li>✅Claude Michel Cluny, "Atacama, Ensayo sobre la guerra del Pacifico, 1879-1883", 2008, 480 pages, ISBN 978-968-16-7982-8, Original title of the French book: "Atacama, Essay sur la guerre du Pacifique, 1879-1883": page 441, "1° de Marzo, Bolivia declara la guerra a Chile"</li> <li>✅Gerhard Lang, "Boliviens Streben nach freiem Zugang zum Meer", Hamburger Gesellschaft für Völkerrecht und Auswärtige Politik, Herausgegeben von Prof. Dr. Herbert Krüger, Band 6, Hamburg 1966, Seite 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 Büdnisvertrages 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. Diese 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:
 * 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. 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. Footnote 54: State papers, Bd. 71, p. 926 </li>

<li>✅Waldemar Hummer, "Revindikation von historischen Gebietstiteln in Lateinamerika - Die Forderung Boliviens auf Zugang zum Meer", Herausgegeben im Auftrag der "Gesellschaft zur Forderung der Forschungen zur Europäischen und Vergleichende Rechtsgeschichte" an der Karl-Franzens-Universität Graz von o. Univ.-Prof. Dr. Bertold Sutter, Heft 16, Graz, 1983, p. 24: ''Angesichts dieser Invasion blieb der bolivianischen Regierung nichts anders übrig, als Chile am 1. März 1879 den Krieg zu erklären sowie Peru um Einhaltung des am ...''</li> <li>✅ William E. Skuban "Lines in the Sand"
 * "President Daza of Bolivia responded by declaring war on Chile on February 27."</li>

<li>✅ Waltraud Q. Morales, "A Brief History of Bolivia",
 * p 82: On March 14., Bolivia announced FORMAL DECLARATION OF WAR</li>

<li>✅ University of Mississippi : On March 14, Bolivia announced that because she had no other honorable recourse, a state of war with Chile existed.</li> <li>✅ William Spence Robertson, "History of the Latin-American Nations". <li>✅ 'Gordon Ireland, "Boundaries, possessions, and conflicts in South America", p. 58: President Daza declared that because of the occupation a state of war existed with Chile.</li> <li>✅ William Leonard Langer, James Blaine Hedges, Karl Julius Ploetz; "An encyclopedia of world history, ancient, medieval and modern, chronologically arranged", p. 821: Despite negotiations Bolivia decided temporarily to rescind the contract of the nitrate company. 1879, Feb. 14. Chilean troops occupied Antofagasta and Bolivia proclaimed a state of war.</li> <li>✅ Paul Wahl, Donald R. Toppel, "The Gatling Gun", p. 93: On February 14, 1879, Bolivia proclaimed a state of war.</li> <li>✅ James Trager, "The people's chronology: a year-by-year record of human events from prehistory to the present": Chilean troops occupy Antofagasta. Bolivia proclaims a state of war.</li> </ol>
 * 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."</li>


 * --Best regards, Keysanger (what?) 11:35, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Keysanger, you need to build a consensus for your position - not convince me. You obviously understand the rules.  I am just another Wikipedian like you and the anonymous professor.  I have no formal power to decide the matter one way or the other.  I am simply willing to listen and as someone who is a Westerner I have the advantage that no one can realistically accuse me of holding a nationalist POV.  I finally declared my opinion that Marshal's proposal is better.  I have given you the reasons.  I don't see any response to my argument.  I have held this opinion for several weeks.  The fact that a professor of history shared my opinion caused me to declare it.  Perhaps I should have remained silent.  You can add to your sources as you please but it needs to be recalled that many -- if not most -- of your sources are simply repeating things they have read in other sources.  Thus we saw that Farcau had not heard of the alternate view and thus obviously had not investigated it.  We saw that Skuban simply repeated something he had read without any investigation at all. My biggest problem with your proposal is the wording "declared war" seems irreducibly to be an interpretation of what happend.  In reality, Bolivia did announce that a "state of war" existed.  They definitely stated that they believed this state of war had existed since Chile invaded their coastline.  You don't deny this, right?  So telling the reader simply that "Bolivia declared war" seems to want to tell the reader to believe something other than what I have come to realise after the course of this discussion.  I don't see how that's a good thing.  I think the reader deserves to know the truth.  It's a minor point, of course, and the reader is free to consider our references, but I still think Marshal's proposal better tells the truth of what happened. NOTE: he is NOT claiming that Bolivia did not declare war.  Nothing in Marshal's sources contradicts anything in your own sources - and remember - I got this wording from one of your own sources. Keysanger, it is completely up to you.  If you wish to press on you can.  But you need to accept that if 7 editors have said that you are wrong, you need to find quite a few others before we can realistically agree to update the text in accordance with your suggestion.  If you are determined to press on, then you have no choice but to raise an RFC.  Alex Harvey (talk) 13:33, 11 September 2011 (UTC)


 * @Alex, I can try contacting the professor again and hear his opinion on the February 27 subject. Maybe he does know something about it since he has been to South America in the past (Brazil and Chile). Right now he is on leave at the university, which means that he is doing research and working on a book. The only problem is that I asked for his opinion nearly a 3 weeks ago, and just recently he had the time to place it here on the discussion. I assume that he must be busy with his own work.
 * In reality, I was hoping that the professor would agree with me in that Bolivia did not declare war in any way or form...but that didn't happen. His opinion was really closer to Farcau's opinion. Technically, the professor's opinion was more favorable to Keysanger's position than mine (and yet Keysanger doesn't see it).
 * I must also question whether his contribution would or would not help resolve the matter. He can't be used as a source, and Keysanger doesn't seem willing to accept anything which does not include the exact wording "Bolivia declared war".-- MarshalN20 | T a l k 14:47, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
 * It would help for the sake of my curiosity because I'm uncomfortable with "according to Farcau". The fact of an act of congress on a given day of history really shouldn't be contingent upon the opinion of Farcau!  An act was either passed, or it wasn't.  Saying "according to Farcau" sort of suggests to the reader that we gave up here and couldn't be bothered pursuing it any further.  Presumably an act was passed as Farcau said; otherwise he wouldn't have written so, and Skuban wouldn't have named that date as the DoW.  I asked Farcau if the text of this act survived today and he said he can no longer remember.  Nonetheless, one would think that the Bolivian Congress archived all acts that passed.  I want to know if that act was simply authorisation for the March 1 decree - or if it was authorisation to formally declare war on March 14.  In my opinion, this is an important issue that remains ambiguous in our proposed wording.  If it was authorisation for the March 1 decree, then the Feb 27 act is of no real significance - it would have been a formality given Daza's status as dictator.  If so, we should drop it from the text.  On the other hand, if it was actual authorisation for a formal declaration of war, it might simply resolve our issue. Alex Harvey (talk) 15:20, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I've sent him a message. I've also asked him that, if he wants to, then I can copy-paste his response here in the talk page.-- MarshalN20 | T a l k 23:56, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

KS's last word: WP editors are not allowed to interpret primary sources
Hi Alex,

I wonder of your posting. You make it so easy to continue the discussion because you see the failure in your rationale but you persist in the error.

You say It is a profesional opinion.

The RS noticeboard say unanimously No, it isn't a professional opinion.

You say My biggest problem with your proposal is the wording "declared war" seems irreducibly to be an interpretation of what happend.

Yes, it is an interpretation. It is the interpretation of the text given by the overwhelming majority of the historians. And that is Wikipedia. I ask you: Is your "announced ..." an interpretation?

You say '' In reality, Bolivia did announce that a "state of war" existed. They definitely stated that they believed this state of war had existed since Chile invaded their coastline. You don't deny this, right?''

I read the text of the BDOW and my personal opinion is that Bolivia declared the war on Chile. You read the text of the BDOW and your personal opinion is that it is a 1/2*BDOW. That could be the end of the Wikipedia because that will occur in almost every article. Lets go back two steps and read the WP rules: Verificability. According to the English Wikipedia rules editors are not allowed to interprete primary sources. Only interpretations of published works are accepted. Now we get the right way. We look in the public library and find 4 sources (you say, I suspect it) stating that 0 or 1/2 BDOW. But we find 31 sources stating a BDOW. I ask you Which one is the right next step?. To say it is a 0 or a 1/2 BDOW?. or to say that it was a BDOW? I ask you, according to the WP rules, is it allowed to you use Wikipedia to publish YOUR interpretation of a primary source?

You say I think the reader deserves to know the truth.

I cite my page:User:Keysanger

I ask you: Are you the only owner of the truth?

You say ''NOTE: he [MarshalN20] is NOT claiming that Bolivia did not declare war. ''

He [MarshalN20] say In reality, I was hoping that the professor would agree with me in that Bolivia did not declare war in any way or form.

Do you understand me why I have no choice but to continue. It is too simple. Or can you answer my questions?

--Best regards, Keysanger (what?) 08:22, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Keysanger, this is all misrepresentation. It seems you really are just refusing to get the point on a number of issues.  For example, Sater & Farcau both agree that the March 1 decree isn't a formal declaration of war.  You say it is because you can read it yourself and see that it is.  The conclusion you should draw is that March 1 was not a DoW yet you will never accept that - even when you find the most expert historians have this view - including the Texas A&M professor.  On your other points, we know that what happened on March 14 is that Bolivia announced that a state of war existed.  That's not interpretation; that's fact.  It is what the Chilean minister reported and what the other primary sources say.  It is worded the same in the March 1 decree, the text of which survives.  That announcement is regarded as a declaration of war, another fact.  Now you are talking about a "1/2 DoW".  I have no idea what that means.  If you really think that "announcing a state of war" is only 1/2 a DoW then it follows that you also must believe that Daza's DoW was in reality only 1/2 a DoW.  I think that's nonsense, but you said it. But let's forget about this.  I know you are not going to change your mind.  The question needs to be, at what point will you accept there is a consensus against your position?  Suppose we raise an RFC and three more editors support Marshal's position.  Do we agree that at that point you will drop the issue?  And if say 1 or 2 support you then what?  It will then be 7 against 3, although I would withdraw my opinion.  Still 6 against 3.  I want to understand how you think this is going to end. Alex Harvey (talk) 15:08, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I would have like that you would have read my explanation in my page (Keysanger's rationale). I have foreseen that people don't understand my position and wrote every step there (The interpretation of the decree, Why different dates?, What about Wording?). That would have answered some of your questions. You didn't.


 * 1 against 3 or 20 against 1, it doesn' matter. I cite WP:RFC
 * RfCs are not votes. Discussion controls the outcome; it is not a matter of counting up the number of votes.
 * The current draft is completly wrong. We have to work a new one and therefore we should agree the criteria we will use.


 * If you accept that, Which is the date of the full BDOW?. I can accept any of three dates: 1. 14. and 18 March. It is no problem for me.
 * Please, answer this questions:
 * Do you and MarshalN20 accept that that there was a full BDOW?
 * If the answer is yes: on which date?
 * I will show you a proposal later. --Best regards, Keysanger (what?) 18:56, 12 September 2011 (UTC)


 * --Best regards, Keysanger (what?) 16:08, 12 September 2011 (UTC)


 * "Cambalechero: 'I think that Keysanger is systematically pushing War of the Pacific things in favour of Chile [...]'"
 * "Keysanger: 'I can accept any of three dates: 1. 14. and 18 March. It is no problem for me.'"
 * Keysanger doesn't care about accuracy. All he cares about is having the statement "Bolivia declared war" in whatever space he can find. The root of the problem is that he doesn't care about the article or the general consensus; he only cares about pushing his POV on the subject. He does a good job at pretending to improve the article, but all he has done so far is push thing in favor of Chile...one can see it in every single "issue" he has proposed and the original topic title he used to begin this whole discussion ("Extreme nationalistic Peru-Bolivia POV"). I also bring back Cambalechero's quote as Keysanger's attitude (his insults and snobby performances) only serve to further confirm it.
 * "Keysanger: 'NOTE: he [MarshalN20] is NOT claiming that Bolivia did not declare war.'"
 * There is a clear difference between my POV and what I am proposing for the article. My POV, as I have countlessly explained, is that Bolivia did not declare war in any way or form (not even "by accident").
 * Both Dr. Farcau and the Texas A&M professor assert that "announcing a state of war" holds the same consequence as that of "declaring war". The Texas A&M professor goes a bit further and explains how "announcing a state of war" is a substitute (to declaring war) used by nations that feel as the victims. Both of them present the United States as an example, but the Texas A&M professor again goes a bit further and explains Paraguay's action in the Chaco War.
 * My wish would have been for them to provide a better distinction between both terms, but that did not happen. That is why I wrote that their statements ended up being more favorable to you. Of course, I should have expected that you would take my statement out of context (I keep forgetting that assuming WP:GF in this discussion is no longer good).
 * The historian's explanations are quite clear to everyone. It is not right to claim that "Bolivia declared war" because that never happened. What did happen is that Bolivia announced the existence of a state of war, essentially the same, but with a subtle difference which is exactly what Bolivia intended.
 * Also important to note is the professor's explanation that Chile did not even take the March 14 announcement as a "declaration of war". As Alex notes, Godoy didn't seem to be much bothered by it, and the Texas A&M professor claims that the foreign powers ignored Bolivia's plea (that's what it all sums up to: Bolivia trying to get the international community to stop sending war material to Chile). Dr. Farcau explains that March 18 is when Chile acknowledged the declarations of Hilarion Daza (made on March 1st), which is the date Caivano and Sivirichi claim Chile took as a declaration of war (no source disputes them).
 * Ultimately, I don't know why I am wasting my time with this. You (Keysanger) won't care to understand any of this. Perhaps only Alex and Cloudaoc (maybe also Chiton and the other fellows hanging around) will read it, but to them it simply will be a repetition of what they have heard already from both historians and uninvolved users. The only solution I see to this problem is either (a) You accept the compromise proposal or (A) we go up to the Administrator's noticeboard (notifying all 7-8 users which have commented on the discussion). Please note that while "a" and "A" are in essence the same letter, a difference exists. Best regards.-- MarshalN20 | T a l k 23:30, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes agree that this discussion has run its course. The important point is we have made a compromise and it has gained the support of 7 (or possibly 8) editors. In Wikipedia, that's about as big a consensus as you'll ever get. Keysanger has said that even if an RFC is raised, he still will not drop the issue unless it goes his way. Accordingly, I agree that there should be no RFC until Keysanger agrees to be bound by the outcome. Alex Harvey (talk) 00:44, 13 September 2011 (UTC)


 * What I propose is to include the consensus statement into the article. If Keysanger reverts it, which I honestly hope he won't, then we can take it to the Administrator's board for breaking the 3RR. We have here enough evidence to justify consensus (including Keysanger's own claim of being "stubborn") for the compromise. We have other issues, also raised by Keysanger, to discuss and improve.-- MarshalN20 | T a l k 01:30, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I would hope we don't get to that point. I have some optimism that Keysanger will agree that unless an RFC brings in overwhelming support for his position, he must drop the issue and accept Marshal's compromise. Alex Harvey (talk) 02:41, 13 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Alex, I can't imagine how Keysanger's RfC can overturn the entire discussion, we already have an expert's opinion which provide clear insight about this matter, and this include in the article the facts as they are, Bolivia declares than a state of war exists with Chile in an official document of the Bolivian government, and that's all the truth. Sadly, I don't share your optimism. Keysanger must accept the consensus or provide conclusive evidence of the Bolivian DoW, but if neither of the cited sources include it, I seriously doubt than such document exists. This has been enough. Greetings. Cloudaoc (talk) 03:31, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Even without the professor's opinion this matter has already achieved a general consensus. I say this because, as Paul in the RSN noted, the professor's decision to remain anonymous may prevent us from using his opinion as anything other than another editor's opinion (despite it falls in line with the opinion of Dr. Farcau). The RSN also noted that it was upon our discrepancy whether or not to take the professor's opinion as a "professional opinion." They couldn't decide on it since that is not the objective of the RSN. He still has not replied to the message I sent him, but hopefully he will respond soon.-- MarshalN20 | T a l k 04:52, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
 * In fairness, the size of this consensus could be misleading. I believe that several of the editors in that consensus are Peruvian/Bolivian nationals.  Others may not have been aware of all Keysanger's evidence when they committed to their opinions.  I think the RFC should go ahead - I think it would not be fair otherwise - but only if Keysanger agrees to be bound by the outcome.  I also hope that the professor responds to Marshal's query because, as I said, I still don't like attributing the fact of the Feb 27 act to the opinion of Farcau. Alex Harvey (talk) 06:04, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Only 2 editors are Peruvian (Cloudaoc and myself), no Bolivians, and everyone else comes from other countries. 4 uninvolved editors have commented.-- MarshalN20 | T a l k 11:41, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Is extortion the right way?
Hi Alex,

If needed, I will go the way of the RfC and we have to accept the rules of WP. You can try to break the rule of WP:RFC (RfCs are not votes. Discussion controls the outcome; it is not a matter of counting up the number of votes.). I would be very sorry for you if you try to impede it and more for Wikipedia if you success. I still think you are doing a good job and don't believe you want to blow it up.

So, the question is how to resolve the problem. Few months ago I read a book named "Guidance to be unhappy" and one of the hints the author gives to be always unhappy is "be always loyal to yourself". I suppose no one of us want to be unhappy. Lets easy off.

There are three places in the article where the BDOW is mentioned. Lets mention "declaration of war" in Lede and "Peruvian mediation". The reader expects a more accurate description in "Crisis", therefore we write your biased "Announced a state of war". Don't care details like grammer, spelling, or others wordings. They are details and we can delete or improve it.

That would be:
 * for "Lede":
 * "On March 14 1879 Bolivia's dictator Daza declared war on Chile. Chile soon learned that Peru and Bolivia had a secret alliance. These revelations resulted on April 5 in a Chilean declaration of war on Peru and Bolivia after Peru refused to declare neutrality. Peru reciprocated on April 6"
 * for "Crisis":
 * "''On March 14 Bolivia's foreign minister Serapio Reyes Ortiz announced in Lima 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."
 * For "Peruvian mediation"
 * "After the Bolivian declaration was published in Santiago on March 18, Peru's envoy Lavalle recognized the existence of the secret treaty and the Chilean government asked Peru to remain neutral. As the Peruvian government responded that Lima intended to honor its commitments to Bolivia, Chile declared the war on Peru and Bolivia on April 5."

It is a knotty move for all, specially for me and Wikipedia, but it is fair and not to move would be worse.

--Best regards, Keysanger (what?) 08:02, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Have we really gotten to the point where the term "extortion" is used?
 * Your first and third parts place Chile as the victim which was forced to declare war. How exactly can you justify this as an improvement?-- MarshalN20 | T a l k 12:10, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
 * @Keysanger, Let's discuss the so-called "rules" first. In my experience - and I don't mean to direct this at you or anyone here - all editors, even the most tendentious, believe their arguments are forced upon them by the "rules".  In practice, that means drawing into focus a line or two of one policy and ignoring everything else.  In this particular case, we all believe we are interpreting the rules correctly.  You believe Marshal is pushing an "extreme nationalist Peru-Bolivia POV".  Marshal believes you are pushing a biased traditional Chilean POV.  You may believe I am confused about the rules or have been biased by the discussion.
 * In this case I believe the rule that matters is WP:WEIGHT. The policy, however, doesn't tell us what to do here.  Because I believe that "announcing a state of war" is exactly the same as "declaring war" - this is what Prof. Farcau said and also what the Texas A&M professor said - it is really a dispute about the meanings of terms.  You say you have 21 sources that say "Bolivia declared war" and we agree that Marshal has 7 that says "Bolivia announced a state of war".  Other sources of course pass over Bolivia's declaration in silence and these arguably support Marshal's position.  Some of your 21 sources are not high quality sources.  For example, Encarta is not a whole lot different from Wikipedia.  Other sources are not specifically about the War in the Pacific.  Moreover, they describe the declaration of war from a higher level of detail.  This is an important point.  Our article wants to describe the event at a closer level of detail.  Marshal's sources seem - to me - to be at a closer level of detail.  One of your prize sources - Sater - seems somewhat equivocal when he finally moves to a closer level of detail.  In all, the argument is that while you have more sources, Marshal's may be more reliable.
 * So how do we resolve this? You would say that the above is bogus.  But for the rest of this, the argument is compelling.  This is where consensus comes in.  "Consensus is Wikipedia's fundamental model for editorial decision-making".  It is here that, in my opinion, you are most confused.  This is the rule that trumps all other rules in Wikipedia.
 * In my view, we have a consensus that includes editors who can't possibly be said to be involved or biased. Tagishsimon made a fundamental observation, as did the IP editor from the language board.  The anonymous professor clearly gave us the most informed opinion.  I am "involved" but you can't realistically say I have a nationalist POV.  This is by Wikipedia's standards a respectable consensus.  Now I am still happy for you to raise an RFC but only if it is understood that the outcome binds all parties.  If there is overwhelming support for your position - or new thoughts that simply cause us to reconsider something - then fine, we keep discussing.  If on the other hand the advice from yet more uninvolved editors is "please adopt the compromise" then it has to go both ways.  I would like to hope and imagine that no one could possibly claim this is not a fair way of ending this.
 * Regarding your new proposal, I don't have a problem with it - but then I didn't have a problem with your original proposal. I just think Marshal's wording is better.  In the likely event that Marshal isn't happy with it - we need to go to an RFC. Alex Harvey (talk) 12:23, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Keysanger has apparently "fired" me as "mediator" - so do others wish to proceed here with an RFC? Alex Harvey (talk) 12:50, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
 * The consensus has been achieved. Greetings.Cloudaoc (talk) 23:37, 14 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Keysanger doesn't WP:OWN the article or the project. I am sure everyone else considers your contributions as valuable and your handling of the situation good.
 * I also agree with Cloudaoc in that the consensus has already been attained.
 * In any case, the professor replied this morning. I will copy-paste the message he replied:

Dear Mr. [MarshalN20],


 * I will gladly answer the questions you have for me, and they sure are plenty.


 * I was not aware that Bruce Farcau found a document from the Bolivian legislature which allowed a formal declaration of war. I am certain that he would not lie about this matter. Writing "according to such-and-such" is best suited when you are citing a personal opinion. I suggest its removal. A footnote or citation attributing the finding to Bruce would suffice.


 * You ask me whether Farcau's finding is relevant or irrelevant. You give me two options, but my honest answer is that the information is neither relevant or irrelevant. Recall that Hilarion Daza took control of Bolivia afer a coup, so any constitutional organization held little control over him. However, he was not a totalitarian monarch, so the constraints existed. That the legislature allowed the declaration of war is more than likely a result of Daza's speech given that same day. Think of it as a popular response to a nationalist rally. It shows that the Bolivian delegates were fully supportive of the conflict, and in that sense holds importance. What is of interest is that, despite having the formal authority to declare war (thereby having the opportunity to justify his actions akin to Pontius Pilate), Daza did not do it. Instead he paraded around with this power until Chile had enough of it.


 * Peruvian involvement. Peru and Bolivia signed a mutual defense pact for the sake of their own interests (not because they cared about each other). Both countries already had enough problems elsewhere to worry about each other. Both countries ignored the treaty until Hilarion Daza used it to his advantage. Even then, Peru did what it could to avoid war with Chile and save its own skin. Then you also have Brazil and Argentina. Brazil purposely planted intrigue by informing Chile of the possible Argentinean signing of the treaty. Argentina wanted Bolivia to give up its territorial claims in exchange for their membership; Bolivia did not accept. Peru did not want to be dragged into an Argentinean-led conflict (Peru, unlike Bolivia and Argentina, held no territorial problem with Chile). You can only imagine how complicated this can get and did get in Europe (World War I). What you should understand is that everyone sought to protect their own interests in the matter. If you go back long enough, almost every country in South America could be deemed as being "involved" in the Saltpeter War. However, in a historical analysis of the actual conflict such an assertion would be silly. To make the story short, Peru got "involved" into the actual conflict when it offered to mediate the dispute between Bolivia and Chile. Argentina and Brazil never actually got involved in the conflict despite they were up their arms involved antebellum. Of course, Chile views this distinctly, but mainly as a way to justify their later belligerent actions.


 * As to who started the Saltpeter War. The traditional Chilean position is that they were dragged into the conflict, and either Peru or Bolivia are attributed as the culprits. The traditional Peruvian position is that Bolivia dragged them into a war with Chile and later got "abandoned" to their own fate. The traditional Bolivian position is that an expansionist Chile sought to take advantage of weak Bolivia. Which one is right? They are all right, and they are all wrong. If you want to bring about a "neutral" interpretation, you simply have to present the facts as they took place. The Saltepeter War started when Chile occupied Antofagasta.


 * Occupation or invasion? Good question. Occupations are understood to exist following an invasion, so the "invasion" step is generally skipped. Neither term is meant to be "aggressive" or "lenient." Historians distinguish the terms when they want to get specific with the sequential order, or want to explain a specific part of the situation.


 * I believe this answers all of your questions? I am glad that my contributions are being helpful to your discussion. I am sorry if my decision to remain anonymous is a problem. Writing a book about the War of the Pacific would sure be a grand plan for the future, but currently I am working on something else.


 * Take care,
 * I copy-pasted the format which he used, but his whole contribution comes out as a block of text. I added the little ":" in order to fix the format. I erased my name and his name as well due to privacy.-- MarshalN20 | T a l k 23:44, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
 * For my own part I am enjoying learning about this war - so I intend to stay for the moment. And I agree with Cloudaoc.  While Keysanger apparently believes he can continue this until he has his way without regard for the views of others then discussion is pointless.  And suggesting that he can shop around for "mediators" in the hope he gets a different answer is one of the worst examples of "gaming" the system I can imagine.  Keysanger might like to reflect on WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT: "Believing that you have a valid point does not confer upon you the right to act as though your point is accepted by the community when you have been told that it is not accepted".  I am again mindful that 7 editors have found the compromise wording most appropriate.  An RFC could still be useful, but not useful when an editor has announced at the outset that he will not listen to comments that do not support his position. I'll comment more on this email response below. Alex Harvey (talk) 03:14, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Sources, only published secondary sources
Hi Alex, please give me the published opinion of the "professor". As long as he hasn't, it is only the opinion (not the professional opinion) of an IP-editor. If you want to convince me, you can do it, but in line with the WP rules, that is with published works and they still favour me: 21 of out of 31 sources say "declared war" or similar. Yes, there are many terciary sources under them. Then lets take the main researcher about the issue. I think you will agree they are Farcau, Sater, Besadre. (We let the Chileans unmentioned). Please take a look what Sater, Besadre and Farcau say:

<ol style="list-style-type:lower-numeral;"> <li>William F. Sater in "Andean Tragedy", states:
 * 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.
 * page 39: Thus, Daza's declaration of war was a godsend ...,
 * page 42: in March he suddenly declared war on Chile</li>

<li>Simon Collier,William F. Sater, "A history of Chile, 1808-2002",
 * page 129: Pinto refused, perhaps believing that Daza would accept a return to the "status quo ante". But Daza did not: two weeks after the Chilean occupation of Antofagasta, Bolivia declared war </li>

<li>William F. Sater, "Chile and the War of the Pacific"‎, Page 9: Two weeks after Chile occupied the disputed territory, Daza declared war. </li> <li>Bruce W. Farcau, "The Ten Cents War", 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."
 * page 43: "Lavalle departed Lima on 22 February, well before the Bolivian declaration of war, but nothing irreversible was to occur for some time..."
 * page 44: "...Word have now reached Santiago of the Bolivian declaration of war, and, ..."</li>

<li>Jorge Besadre, "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</li>

</ol> You will agree that they write "Daza/Bolivia declared war", "Bolivian declaration of war", "formal declaration of belligerence", "el casus belli con Chile con todos sus efectos y consecuencias". This has been confirmed by Dr. B. Farcau. He is the author of one of two books in English language about the war besides many others and member of the Foreign office. I mean, he is not a unknown historian.

Please, show me your secondary sources of Sater, Farcau and Besadre stating "announced a state of war" and tell me how many they are.

If you want to work in this category the we can quickly reach an agreement. If you want to publish your personal interpretation of the 1. March decree, or to call "professional opinion" a nameless unknown IP-editor, well then lets go to the next instance.

By the way, what is your proposal for lede and Peruvian mediation?. --Best regards, Keysanger (what?) 08:43, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Here's an anecdote. Jimmy Wales once insisted that the community rename our article on Climategate as "Climategate" - but he was overruled by a majority of editors.  (Wikipedia is now the only organisation in the world refusing to call the "Climategate" controversy "Climategate".)  Since then there have been another five or so attempts to rename the page in accordance with policy.  Yet in spite of Wikipedia's founder's personal appeal to the community to "follow the rules", a core of regulars hold out and prevent the renaming from occurring.  You really seem to have no idea how Wikipedia works.  You need to build a consensus.  There is no editor-in-chief who can overrule others and say "Everyone: Please do what Keysanger says".  Why is this so hard to understand? Alex Harvey (talk) 14:12, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I wonder why Keysanger keeps pretending to be interested in the article's accuracy. After all, he has stated more than once that all he cares about is that the wording "Bolivia declared war" is included somewhere in the article. He doesn't care about the right date, much less about attaining consensus. He thinks he owns the article, "fires" editors he doesn't like, and keeps WP:SHOPPING around different noticeboards trying to make himself a victim (to the point of calling me a "Peruvian patriot"). I also have not forgotten his several personal attacks, including directly accusing me of stupidity, and his early attempts to confuse Alex through misguided information. Most recently, he has accused us all of extortion. Why do we have to put up with this?-- MarshalN20 | T a l k 15:51, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

@Marshal, out of curiosity how do you translate the following sentence from Besadre: "La declaración boliviana de guerra era (dice el historiador chileno Bulnes) un palo atravesado en las ruedas del carro empujado por Lavalle". Do you agree with Keysanger's translation above? I can't read Spanish of course... Alex Harvey (talk) 06:57, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Jorge Basadre is citing Chilean historian Gonzalo Bulnes. The funny thing is that Basadre uses the term "According to Chilean historian Bulnes," which (based on the logic from the Texas A&M Professor) means he is citing an opinion...or at least he is considering it to be an opinion.
 * In Keysanger's first bolded part, Jorge Basadre describes the March 14 decree as the time when Bolivia established the "justification for acts of war". That makes it even more clear that it was not a declaration of war.
 * In conclusion, Basadre is taking much of his information from Bulnes. It's interesting that he does this considering he lived at a time when other sources were available to him, and that he kept updating his book until 1968 (He died in 1980). Italian historian Tommaso Caivano provides a much more critical analysis (Page 68-67; Spanish), and explains that the reason Chile requested Peruvian neutrality was that they believed Peru's mobilization of armament and troops posed a threat. They wanted Peru to stop its mobilization and declare its neutrality.-- MarshalN20 | T a l k 23:58, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

new proposal
Marshal, Cloudaoc, how is this revised proposal, based on the suggestion of the IP editor:

"News of the invasion reached Hilarión Daza on February 20, but he postponed mention of it until the end of the carnival festivities. On February 27, Daza made a public manifesto informing Bolivians and calling for patriotic support. The same day the Bolivian legislature authorized a formal declaration of war upon Chile, although it was not immediately announced. On March 1, Daza issued instead 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, in a meeting with foreign powers in Lima, Bolivia announced that a state of war existed with Chile. Bolivia called on Peru to activate the alliance treaty, arguing that Chile's invasion constituted a casus foederis."

That I think should keep all reasonable editors - whether from Chile, Peru or Boliva - happy. Alex Harvey (talk) 02:45, 16 September 2011 (UTC)


 * ✅ Great. It covers the dreaded "declaration of war" mention sought by Keysanger and keeps every step of the matter exactly as it happened. Thank you Alex for your neutral stance in this situation. Hopefully this will indeed satisfy all editors.-- MarshalN20 | T a l k 02:54, 16 September 2011 (UTC)


 * ✅ Fine for me, but I'm still looking for the elusive Bolivian DoW document issued in March 1. Regards,Cloudaoc (talk) 03:00, 16 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I believe this discussion has run its course, the consensus has been attained, and the final result is a compromise presented and supported by neutral contributors.-- MarshalN20 | T a l k 03:08, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

lead
Presently we have:

"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. Disputes further escalated until Chile declared war on both countries on April 5, 1879, and the following day Peru activated the alliance."

This is mainly about how Peru got involved - and less about how the war actually started. The actual start of the war - the occupation of Antofagasta - is mentioned only in passing.

I suggest we firstly introduce a sentence explaining Peru's interests prior to the dispute (in fairness) and start a new sentence about how the war started. I suggest:

"The war began on February 14, 1879 when Chilean armed forced occupied the port city of Antofagasta. This was in response to Bolivia's threat to confiscate the Chilean Antofagasta Nitrate Company's property. Peru attempted to mediate, but after Bolivia ordered Chileans to leave and announced 'a state of war' in Lima, the situation escalated.  Bolivia asked Peru to activate the secret 'Treaty of Mutual Defense'.  Finally, on April 5, after Peru refused to remain neutral, Chile declared war on both nations."

Alex Harvey (talk) 15:42, 16 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Hi Alex,


 * I disagree your proposal because it evades to mention what all researchers state: the Bolivian Declaration of War.
 * In order to prepare the RfC, would you be so kind to answer the question:
 * Do you agree that Farcau, Sater and Basadre are the most importatnt non-Chilean historians regarding the War of the Pacific?
 * Do you agree that Farcau, Sater, Besadre mention the Bolivian Declaration of War as a fact?.
 * Thanks in advance, --Best regards, Keysanger (what?) 22:01, 16 September 2011 (UTC)


 * ✅ But, I think we must change the line "occupied the port city of Antofagasta" for "invaded the Bolivian Litoral, occuping the port city of Antofagasta". Greetings.-- Ian (CloudAOC) | Talk  23:45, 16 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I like the proposal, but have a few improvement suggestions:
 * It still doesn't seem right to call the Treaty of Mutual Defense a secret. Chile already knew about the treaty and even had a full copy of it several years prior to the war. If everyone involved knew about it, then it no longer was a secret.
 * Peru did not refuse to remain neutral. It left the matter for its congress to decide. Chile wanted an immediate response, and that was the problem.
 * Other than these two points, everything else is better. The professor did say that "occupied" is already understood to be an "invasion"...I am not entirely in favor of his explanation, but it's something you (Alex) also explained. Unlike Keysanger, I don't pride stubborness.-- MarshalN20 | T a l k 00:28, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Okay, how about this:
 * "The war began on February 14, 1879 when Chilean armed forces occupied the port city of Antofagasta, after a Bolivian threat to confiscate Chilean Antofagasta Nitrate Company's property. Peru attempted to mediate, but when Bolivia announced to the diplomatic corp that a state of war existed, the situation deteriorated. Boliva called on Peru to activate the mutual defense pact.  Finally, on April 5, after Peru resisted Chile's demand to immediately declare its neutrality, Chile declared war on both nations."
 * Alex Harvey (talk) 15:06, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
 * ✅ This is about as close as it can get to perfect summary explanation.-- MarshalN20 | T a l k 15:21, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
 * ✅ It's quite clear and well redacted. -- Ian (CloudAOC) | Talk  05:52, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I refuse any solution that doesn't consider the overwhelming opinion of the historians: "Bolivia declared war on Chile". Please, read the sources. --Best regards, Keysanger (what?) 10:26, 20 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Hi Alex,
 * In order to prepare the RfC, would you be so kind to answer the question:
 * Do you agree that Farcau, Sater and Basadre are the most importatnt non-Chilean historians regarding the War of the Pacific?
 * Do you agree that Farcau, Sater, Besadre mention the Bolivian Declaration of War as a fact?.
 * Thanks in advance, --Best regards, Keysanger (what?) 10:26, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
 * These seem to be rhetorical questions Keysanger. I suggest you get on with it and raise the RFC.  I don't know who the "most important" historians are and if you are going to make that claim you need to justify it.  Sater appears to be a specialist in Chilean history, so I would suppose he has a better understanding of Chile's perspective.  If I search "War of the Pacific" in Google Books I find a number of other books devoted to the subject by authors we haven't considered.  E.g. Frederic P Miller, Agnes F Vandome, John McBrewster 2010: War of the Pacific, VDM Publishing House Ltd., 72 pages.  And yes, Sater, Farcau & Besadre seem to agree on the fact that there was a Bolivian declaration of war. Alex Harvey (talk) 13:55, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi Alex,
 * lets stay by Sater, Farcau and Besadre. Your finding "Frederic P Miller, Agnes F Vandome, John McBrewster" is commented her:
 * An Amazon.com book search on 9 June 2009 gives 1009 (6 August, gives 1,859) "books" from Alphascript Publishing.[nan 1] 1003 of the books are described as "by John McBrewster, Frederic P. Miller, and Agnes F. Vandome". They are called editors in the book listings. It seems the only content of the many books is free Wikipedia articles with no sign that these three people have contributed to them. (Alphascript Publishing sells free articles as expensive books)
 * You will find there the same biased articles we found at the beginning of the discussion ("Under international law...", "War crimes", etc)
 * As you can see Sater, Basadre and Farcau are a good basis for a consensus. --Best regards, Keysanger (what?) 10:58, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Keysanger, please just get on with it and stop wasting time. It is obviously ridiculous to claim that there are only 3 historians who matter in the study of a controversial, 150 year old war.  But if you want to make such a claim, you don't need my permission or anyone else's. Alex Harvey (talk) 14:20, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
 * And now, Keysanger are telling us which sources we can use to achieve consensus! Alex, if there is no more valid comments we must close this issue and include the new text in the article. Greetings. -- Ian (CloudAOC) | Talk  23:39, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Alex, we have already a consensus, there is no need for a new RfC just because Keysanger do not want to accept not only the consensus achieved but the facts as they are. There is no "overwhelming opinion" about than Bolivia declared war to Chile, and also there is no evidence about the affirmation than Sater, Farcau and Basadre are the "most important non-Chilean historians" regarding the Saltpeter War, this has been enough, the text approved by consensus must be included in the article no matter what Keysanger says. If later he can present a RfC and if this is conclusive (very unlikely) just then we can put that version in the article, but we cannot wait forever just because Keysanger didn't want. Keysanger, what you want is irrelevant, this is not your article. Greetings -- Ian (CloudAOC) | Talk  16:38, 20 September 2011 (UTC)


 * If you noticed, the Basadre texts is quoting Bulnes when says: "La declaración boliviana de guerra era (dice el historiador chileno Bulnes) un palo atravesado en las ruedas del carro empujado por Lavalle.", it was Bulnes, not Basadre, who mention the BDoW as such, and in the previous paragraph, when Basadre says: "Porque la había declarado Bolivia", he is explaining the Chilean version of the facts. Keysanger is interpreting this lines out of its context to sustain than also Basadre affirms than Bolivia declares war to Chile. This leaves Sater and Farcau only to sustain such affirmation. Greetings. -- Ian (CloudAOC) | Talk  19:21, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I am at something of a disadvantage on Besadre as I can't read Spanish. However, I think that the first part would be translated "The Bolivian declaration of war was (according to Chilean historian Bulnes) un palo atravesado en las ruedas del carro empujado por Lavalle".  If so, he would be attributing the Bdow as a fact and the remainder of the sentence as the opinion of Bulnes.  On the RFC, we can't stop Keysanger from raising an RFC if he wants to.  It's not obvious how it can overturn this consensus but anyone can raise an RFC if they want to.  Alex Harvey (talk) 01:18, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
 * True, Keysanger has every right to continue arguing his point. What he does not have a right to is challenge material (through deletions or reverts) that has gained consensus. Consensus itself is subject to change, but difficult for Keysanger given the circumstances. As he was most recently told in his attempt at finding someone to justify his actions, "If 7 people are telling you something, and what those seven people are saying is compliant with our policies, there has to come a point where the situation is resolved and the super-majority is considered consensus" (Quoted from User:Qwyrxian) in the Village pump (policy). I still don't understand why Keysanger keeps pursuing this argument given that the compromise is most favorable to him, but if that's how he wants to spend his time then that's his problem. For the time being, I think everyone has been wise to leave the talk page for a while and cool down the issue. I am sure Keysanger will eventually listen to reason. Best regards.-- MarshalN20 | T a l k 01:36, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Of course Keysanger have the right to sustain his points at infinitum, but we have to convince him to finally include the text (approved by consensus) in the article? That's my point, if he want a new RfC, perfect, I don't think than he can obtain what he wants, but meanwhile, the article remains unchanged and full of tags ("original research, "no NPoV", etc) put by Keysanger to keep the readers suspicious about its reliability. I don't share your opinion Marshall, Keysanger don't want to hear or follow the reason... Greetings.-- Ian (CloudAOC) | Talk  15:54, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
 * @Ian above, the article has already been updated so I'm marking this as "resolved" as you say. @Keysanger, if you decide to raise your RFC please create a new thread for it (as you would have to do anyway).  This discussion - as all parties agree aside from Keysangers - has well and truly run its course. Alex Harvey (talk) 15:38, 24 September 2011 (UTC)