Talk:War of the Pacific/Archive 13

Issue 34: Peruvian mediation 1
The article states:
 * However, not only did Peru hold a poorly equipped military

That is misleading the reader. WP wanrs about However. --Best regards, Keysanger (what?) 16:56, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Can you explain how this phrase can mislead the reader (besides the "however")?. And also, did you try to fix it by yourself? Regards.-- Ian (CloudAOC) | Talk  19:58, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
 * In this case, "however" is being properly used as a contrast to the claim that Peru was making war preparations. The reader is not being misled.-- MarshalN20 | T a l k 03:39, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Exactly, and because Keysanger don't provide any other argument to this issue besides a technicism ("however"), this issue is closed. Regards. Ian (CloudAOC) | Talk  03:48, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I can't see the misleading part of the statement. Plase explain further Keysanger.Chiton magnificus (talk) 17:25, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

The context of the sentence is:
 * Previous Peruvian demands had favored Bolivia, and Lavalle denied knowing about the existence of the treaty, which discomfited the Chileans. However, not only did Peru hold a poorly equipped military, but also faced a financial crisis which prevented the possibility of any war preparations

The first part of the text (should) state(s) that Chileans didn't trust Lavalle's words and there only two reasons (they favored Bolivia and the secret treaty) why they discomfited him.

The second part of the text attempt to dilute the Chilean reasons. "However", as WP:EDITORIAL correctly warns us, may imply a relationship between two statements where none exists, perhaps inappropriately undermining the first or giving undue precedence to the credibility of the second.

The state of any armed forces is often not a reason to wage (or not) a war. There is a lot of cases where weak countries init a war against a powerfull power: Falklands War, Cenepa War, Pacific War, etc. So, the suggested rationale for a Peruvian pacifism is false. It is probably true that president Prado didn't want the war and that the Peruvian army wasn't ready but that aren't a proof that Peru didn't init the preparations toward war, as the controversial text suggests.

My proposal is to delete the complete second part ("however ...") or we can complete the sentence adding the catastrophal state of the Chilean army and the economic crisis in Chile during the late 70s. Some historians went so far to say that the Chilean economic crisis was the reason of the war. Also Lavalle, in his report about the mediation stated that in Peru, all wanted the war: the military, the Pierolists, the Pradists, the bussines men, etc.

Moreover, the word "to discomfit" is obviously POV:
 * dis·com·fit   [dis-kuhm-fit] verb (used with object)
 * 1. to confuse and deject; disconcert: to be discomfited by a question.
 * 2. to frustrate the plans of; thwart; foil.
 * 3. Archaic . to defeat utterly; rout: The army was discomfited in every battle.

The Chilean government was neither defeated nor frustrated nor confused by the Peruvian mediation. As Peru didn't declared neutral, Chile inmediately declared the war. I don't see any confusion. The right English verb to describe the situation is "to mistrust"

--Best regards, Keysanger (what?) 11:51, 27 March 2012 (UTC)


 * The context of the sentence in question is the following:
 * QUOTE: The Chilean government stalled, suspecting that Peru's attempt was not bona fide, and that it was only trying to delay until it completed its war preparations. Previous Peruvian demands had favored Bolivia, and Lavalle denied knowing about the existence of the treaty, which discomfited the Chileans. However, not only did Peru hold a poorly equipped military, but also faced a financial crisis which prevented the possibility of any war preparations.
 * Based on this context, your original argument is a fallacy. Your deletion proposal is, from my part, denied. Any deletion of the sourced material shall be considered vandalism.
 * Regarding the state of Chile's army, that is matter suited for the "crisis" or "background" section. No correlation exists between it and the true context of the information.
 * I never use in my speech the term "discomfit", and rather it sounds like one of those terms you'd use without knowing what it means.
 * Best of wishes.-- MarshalN20 | T al k 23:47, 29 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the explanation Keysanger. Now I have read the source backing However, not only did Peru hold a poorly equipped military, but also faced a financial crisis which prevented the possibility of any war preparations.. It is first of all a summary account of the war and does not mention (at least in page 12) any economic crisis (anyway the Long Depression afected both Chile and Peru. Second the sentences "however" as Keysanger said implies a conection, being poorly equiped is mentioned in the sentence as being directly related to the stance of Peru at that point, but it neglecs the fact that also Chile was not properly prepared for war (using the same source).


 * The sentence have to enterely re-written or removed, as it seems now it presents facts favouring a "poor Peru-thesis" while neglecting Chile's own problems (economic and military) at the time. Moreover It does also makes an arbitrary conection -the "however". Chiton magnificus (talk) 02:15, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Everything should be fixed now. Regards.-- MarshalN20 | T al k 16:08, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Captured article
Keysanger you can't keep the article captive for ever. Your particular stance on these topics have been a minority for years and while other editors (me, Marshall, "Ioanac" etc.) have sort of reached a consensus. The additional citation, OR, verify and neutrality template at the top of the article largely exagerate issues that the article has. These are issues of low relevance for the general reader; only a specialist historian or extreme nationalist would consider the article wholly flawed because of these issues.

Now, going over to a more constructive tone I would suggest to move the top-template from the article and replace it with templates at the specific sections.

—Chiton magnificus (talk) 02:30, 6 June 2012 (UTC)


 * I support Chiton's proposal. Wikipedia is a work in progress, and the excessive tags on the article are not of any help.
 * Hopefully this will not lead to a response of sections and lists (which by this time are quite typical of Keysanger).
 * Regards.-- MarshalN20 | T al k 03:04, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I also agree with Chiton's proposal. Sorry for the long absence, but I'm still here and this article is too important for let it in Keysanger's hands. Greetings. -- Ian (CloudAOC) | Talk  05:03, 6 June 2012 (UTC)


 * The cuestion is who has captured the article?. I ask you, Chiton, who has captured the article?, who has impeded that sources like Farcau and Sater come into the article (BDoW for example)?, who has impeded that the causes of the war are mentioned in the article?, who has continually and systematically pushed the Peruvian POV in the article (Grau's chavallery, the secret treaty was not secret, the Pilcomayo was never captured, the Chileans were rescued, etc)?.


 * If you have a little time, take a look in the history of the article and count how many times other interested wikipedians have could change the article against the will of two Peruvian editors in questions like "Repaso" or "Grau". (Grau appears 12 times in the article, Prado the president only 9 times!)


 * You have to adress your criticisms to the editors that factually "own" the article. With the tags, every one of them well-founded, Wikipedia is using its last resort to avoid being used as a Peruvian nacionalistic pamphlet.


 * Moreover, your will to convert Wikipedia in a democracy is against the basic rules of Wikipedia. Concensus based in reliable sources must be the fundament of the articles, not the majority of streets gangs. --Best regards, Keysanger (what?) 10:13, 6 June 2012 (UTC)


 * As I have stated since my first edits in the WotP article Keysanger overly exagerates the flaws of the article; to the point fearing it to become a "Peruvian nacionalistic pamphlet". In fact I would like to point out that your rethoric resembles very much the typical nationalistic one: "Wikipedia is using its last resort" (yeah, a last stand against the Peruvian hordes!). We are very far from your apocalyptic visions.


 * To not missunderstand me; Im proposing removing tags from the article top to replace them with inline tags like . I have read the article many times and albeit I know there might be tiny flaws I dont see the article biased away from international NPOV. I guess that acording to the pontiffs of maintream nationalistic history in Peru and Chile this article might seems an aberration. Im glad Wikipedia is not made for them, but for poeple of the whole world. —Chiton magnificus (talk) 20:51, 8 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Chiton, in order to resolve the problem we have to be direct and clear. Can you tell me wich are the falaws that presents a Chilean biased POV?. Is Prats too many times mentioned? Jose Francisco Vergara? Rafael Sotomayor?. I want to be the first to delete/correct them!. Are you ready to do the same with the Peruvian heros glorification presented in the section "Peru"?. --Best regards, Keysanger (what?) 21:16, 8 June 2012 (UTC)


 * One sentence mentioning that Miguel Grau is an important post-war figure in Peru...and you consider that nationalism? Why do you think Peru officially calls its maritime territory the "Mar de Grau"? There must be a word (in the dictionary) for a person that acts the way you do, Keysanger.-- MarshalN20 | T al k 22:59, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

@M20: This is an article about the "War of the Pacific" and there were three countries involved: Bolivia, Chile and Peru. This is not an article about the current problems of Peru.

@Chiton, do you still thinks that the article contains a Chilean biased POV?. --Best regards, Keysanger (what?) 11:20, 11 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Chiton has never written anything about "Chilean biased POV" (at least not in this section). Please provide evidence for your claim, or stop with the accusations made against the editor.
 * The "Aftermath" section is there to write what happened after the war. After the war, Miguel Grau became an important hero in Peru (by some accounts, the most important Peruvian figure even to this day).-- MarshalN20 | T al k 14:31, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Issue 37: Pilcomayo/Rescue
,

The current version of the article states that:


 * In the aftermath, Grau ordered the rescue of the remaining Chilean sailors.
 *  Miguel Grau became an important figure in Peru due to his ... and rescue of Chilean sailors in Iquique'

But the capture of the Pilcomayo and his crew isn't mentioned anywhere in the article. The mention of one fact (rescue) and the omision of another fact (capture) is a clear POV for the Bolivia-Peru alliance that can be observed in the whole article (see issues above 1-36). I propose to mention the capture of the Pilcomayo according the rules of WP. --Best regards, Keysanger (what?) 09:56, 6 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Please show me just one reversion of the Pilcomayo incident that justifies this "issue" in the talk page.-- MarshalN20 | T al k 15:17, 6 June 2012 (UTC)


 * My duty is to hint the flaws of the article and to give well founded reasons why it is unbalanced, contradictory, peacock, unreliable, un-encyclopedic, etc and to warn the reader about this. I carried out my duty. I am not here to participate in stupid edit wars. You can try to improve the article or let it as is. --Best regards, Keysanger (what?) 11:15, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

=Pending issues=

Issue 3: Repase references
For the "repase"-Theory are shown two references. The first one is a unknown page (HTTP 404) and the second one is a primary source of Andres Caceres and as such non-available for Wikipedia. Moreover, the section dont mention the given promise of not to fight against the Chilean government. --Keysanger (what?) 08:40, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
 * The information provided by Caceres is backed up by secondary sources, therefore his primary account stands. Added that the "Repaso" is not a theory, but a fact.-- MarshalN20 | T a l k 19:09, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Please, write the complete paragraph that you mean support your sentences and delete the tag only when the discussion is finished. Best regards, --Keysanger (what?) 22:33, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I will not do the work for you. I have done enough by providing the sources and page number. If you wish to improve the citations, feel free to do so on your own.-- MarshalN20 | T a l k 18:51, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
 * You HAVE to do the work. And through reliable sources and not a lot of biased "testimonies". Best Regards, Keysanger (what?) 19:02, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
 * No, all that is required of me is to provide the source and page in which you can find the information. Anything else you want to do is up to you. I will not do the work for you.-- MarshalN20 | T a l k 19:10, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I can give you a cite from WP:BURDEN: The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material.. --Best regards, Keysanger (what?) 13:09, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I have already provided the evidence. You're trying to make me do your work.-- MarshalN20 | T a l k 14:19, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't believe the issue here is reliably sourced mention of repaso (the material definitely should be included) but the non neutral way the material is placed and presented. The following paragraph appears at the end of the 'strategy' section:

"The three nations claimed to adhere to the Geneva Red Cross Convention to protect the war wounded, prisoners, refugees, civilians, and other non-combatants.[96] However, during the war, Chile commonly ordered a repaso (or repase), a method 'to completely kill the dead' by executing all soldiers, regardless of injuries, of the opposing army left in the battlefied.[97] After the Battle of Tacna, Chilean troops went as far as to enter field hospitals and execute all soldiers of the opposing Peruvian and Bolivian armies.[98][99] The repaso further incremented the number of Peruvian casualties in the battles of San Juan, Chorrillos, and Miraflores.[100] In the aftermath of the Battle of Huamachuco, Chilean Colonel Alejandro Gorostiaga ordered a repase under the pretext that they formed part of an irregular army and could therefore not be considered prisoners of war.[101][102] Peruvian Colonel Leoncio Prado was among the few soldiers who were not killed during the Huamachuco repase,[103] but was executed shortly thereafter."

It seems the facts are selected here to promote a view that Chile's conduct was barbaric. The facts should be included, but there needs to be a deeper analysis of the repaso. Why did Chile do this? Whose idea was it? What were they trying to achieve? And so on. Alex Harvey (talk) 10:41, 25 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Regardless of how much explanation is made, the repaso will continue to be a sad story in the course of the war.-- MarshalN20 | T a l k 14:07, 2 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Alex, again are you making comments like "the facts are selected", again if you don't know about the facts of this war you can't give a opinion like this... If the facts seem "barbaric" is because they were barbaric, can you understand that? Can you understand than the Chilean troops came to Peru to burn, loot and rape every town and city in its way? This is not about your opinion or our opinion about the facts of the war, is about the facts itself. Greetings. -- Ian (CloudAOC) | Talk  03:50, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Ian, what I'm saying is this paragraph doesn't begin to satisfy my historical interest - it is plain that it has been written by someone with an anti-Chilean axe to grind. If I was the reader, I would flag this paragraph as probably unreliable and do my own investigation.  That's not good for you if you want the reader to regard this as accurate.  I am not suggesting that the Chilean acts weren't "barbaric".  I am sure that some Peruvian actions were barbaric too - this is normal in all wars.  It just isn't a serious analysis.  So I'm suggesting, go deeper & improve the article.  Perhaps I'll look into it further if I get time. Alex Harvey (talk) 11:34, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

seriously there's nothing sinister about my edits, im just correcting the english and just mentioning who wrote what about the repaso. regrettably all the references about the repaso are from peruvian sources...therefore its imperative to point this out, in order to protect the integrity of this article. You -- Ian (CloudAOC) labelling my edits as vandelism is very obnoxious and makes me think you just want to protect a certain point of view. Since im not disputing the information or making any deletions, my edits are justified--IggyAU (talk) 22:25, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Again sir, this is not a historiographic article, it's an historic one, therefore, the addition of the origin of the repaso sources can be interpreted than the repaso is just a "theory" sustained only by Peruvian authors and not a fact, registered not only by Peruvian accounts but also by neutral witnesses. In fact, this has been objected before for several other issues, and the consensus was than the article must contain only facts, not points-of-view by nation. And the repaso was a fact, it happens. Denying this is like denying the Jewish Holocaust by the Nazi Germany. I reject all your insinuations about my behavior, and I suggest than you must start sustaining your additions to the articule than questioning the editions by other editors involved in its improvement. Greetings -- Ian (CloudAOC) | Talk  16:39, 22 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Iggy, your edits are disruptive to the article in the sense that you are making personal claims on matters which, up to know, you have not demonstrated as actually controversial in the historical community. When you write that "Peruvian historians...claim," you are casting doubt on the fact that the repaso was used by Chilean troops during the war. If you can provide a reliable source which argues that the repaso did not happen, then and only then will it be necessary to identify what can be considered a Peruvian perspective on matters. Best of wishes.-- MarshalN20 | T a l k 16:53, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

sadly the repaso claim is an opinion of the peruvian POV, to use the holocaust analogy to describe those who question the legitimacy of the repaso claim is laughable. IAN the holocaust is proven by film footage, confessions from NAZI's and evidence from the nerumberg trials. Sadly the repaso claim are based on one primary source in Mariano Felipe Paz Soldan who fled to Argentina during the War. All other documents relating to the repaso are only secondary sources based on that Peruvian author. To openly declare repaso AS FACT is disturbing, if I was to use the WWII analogy as per IAN, having a one sided view on the repaso is like the NAZI propaganda campaign against the Jews.--202.138.9.251 (talk) 07:24, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

the genesis of the repaso claim seems to originate from Mariano Felipe Paz Soldan, a quick check of all references listed for this subject (all Peruvian btw) have Mariano Felipe Paz Soladan mentioned. According to the wikipedia page on him "During the disastrous war with Chile, he sought refuge in Buenos Aires where he was made professor in the Colegio Nacional de Buenos Aires and where he wrote and published a history of the war (1884)". I have many questions on this subject; what other references are there on the repaso? was there any official war crimes BoldItalicEmbedded fileSignature and timestampLinkAdvancedSpecial charactersHelpCite committed? any arrests? any chilean confessions? This article is rather one sided on this matter and must be revised and I'm not convinced this subject is FACT but just Peruvian opinion being labelled as FACT--XavierIT (talk) 12:30, 8 February 2012 (UTC)


 * All you have to do is present a reliable source which questions the Repaso, and that is all. Up to now, none of you have done this; and that is assuming you are all not the same person. Regards.-- MarshalN20 | T al k 15:37, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

did you even read my post? please read it again, you seem to be missing the point, maybe you can respond to the issues raised instead of providing a condescending answer, the previous post before mine is also valid. regards --XavierIT (talk) 16:20, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

BTW, when it says "Chile commonly ordered a repaso" do you assume that the president of chile gave the alleged order? chilean general? chilean general's wife? That paragraph needs rewording or remove it all together, this is an example of weasel words, regards --XavierIT (talk) 16:50, 8 February 2012 (UTC)


 * All we need to change the material is one reliable source that contradicts it. If you refuse or cannot provide us with such a source, then you have no grounds to make a change to the article. Please do not edit the article without providing such a source, otherwise you will be reported to the administrators. Best regards.-- MarshalN20 | T al k 17:41, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Issue 24: Topater
This battle was on 23 March 1879, also during the "Peruvian Mediation". I moved the passage to the right sub-section but it was reverted. I moved it again and hope the reverter gives his reasons at this place. --Best regards, Keysanger (what?) 09:54, 29 September 2011 (UTC)


 * The Battle of Topater took place during the Chilean invasion of the Bolivian coastline. It does not fit in with Peru's mediation.-- MarshalN20 | T a l k 13:37, 29 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Also the Treaty of Ancon in 1884 was signed during the Chilean occupation of the Litoral. Every section and subsection has a time limit we cann't exceed. Hence the battle belong to Peruvian Mediation. --Best regards, Keysanger (what?) 14:45, 29 September 2011 (UTC)


 * The Battle of Topater was on 1879, not 1884.-- MarshalN20 | T a l k 16:33, 29 September 2011 (UTC)


 * The problem is the chronology of the battles, normally the War actions are divided as follows:


 * Bolivian Litoral Campaign (February 1879 - December 1879), from Topater to Tambillo.
 * Naval Campaign (April 1879 - October 1879) from Chipana to Angamos.
 * Tarapacá Campaign (November 1879) from Pisagua to Tarapacá
 * Tacna - Arica Campaign (December 1879 - June 1880) from Ilo to Arica
 * Lima Campaign (November 1880 - January 1881) from Lurin to Miraflores
 * Breña Campaign (February 1880 - July 1884) from Miraflores to Huamachuco


 * As you can see, the campaigns are not subsequent, and even some battles aren't mentioned, like Pisagua. I suggest a complete revision of the dates and the campaigns articles. What do you think? Greetings. -- Ian (CloudAOC) | Talk  20:45, 29 September 2011 (UTC)


 * The battle simply doesn't fit in the section that deals with Peru's mediation. It's completely random. It fits in better with the "Crisis" section since (A) It's the first battle of the war and (B) What effect did it have on Peru's mediation?-- MarshalN20 | T a l k 02:15, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

We can't "re"-write the history. If occured during the PM then we tell it in the PM subsection. --Best regards, Keysanger (what?) 13:13, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Rewrite history? haha. Are you joking? The current version is correct. We have explained why it is correct. If you change it, we will report your edit as disruptive. Best regards.-- MarshalN20 | T a l k 13:46, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't have a strong opinion on what section this belongs in but the argument that because "section X covers dates A to B therefore anything that happened between A and B needs to be in section X" doesn't make sense to me. By this logic the battle should also appear in our article on the Anglo-Zulu War simply because the dates coincide.  Is there some other reason, apart from the dates, that Keysanger wants this in the PM section? Alex Harvey (talk) 10:30, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Dates overlap in both sections. The difference is that while one section focuses on the events taking place in the Litoral Department, the other focuses on the Peruvian Mediation. I am guessing this is something Keysanger can easily understand.-- MarshalN20 | T a l k 21:19, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Alex, please take a look to Historiography
 * it is organized chronologically
 * That is, WP cann't dispose freely about the sequence of facts. --Best regards, Keysanger (what?) 10:13, 24 March 2012 (UTC)


 * The sequence of information is being correctly placed with the dates. No error is being made. The "Peruvian Mediation" section is meant solely to discuss Peru's mediation, and nothing more. The Battle of Topater happened in the context of the "Crisis" of Antofagasta, therefore it is included in the "Crisis" section. My argument makes more sense than your position. Regards.-- MarshalN20 | T al k

Issue 36: Grau's gallantry
That has nothing to do with the war. It is Peruvian folklore and most of the editors have seen it. --Best regards, Keysanger (what?) 16:56, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
 * We need to improve that part, true. It's not as simple as removing it, but rather better incorporating it into the text. Prat and Grau are important figures in the conflict.-- MarshalN20 | T al k 14:34, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
 * is it not better to discuss that thing in the aftermath section? At the end the "bravery" and "gallantry" of figuras like Bolognesi, Abaroa, Prat and Grau had more impact after the war than during it. Chiton magnificus (talk) 22:36, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I understand what you mean, but Prat and Grau are a special case. Allow me to elaborate:
 * Bolognesi had an impact in post-war Peru due to his defiant declarations prior to the Battle of Arica, mainly because overtime people forgot why he took such a decision (Bolognesi expected the minefields to help him, which they didn't because a traitor told the Chileans where to cross safely, and he also expected reinforcements to arrive, which they also never arrived) and also because it played an important part in Peru's claims over Tacna and Arica (which remained occupied by Chile even after the war was over).
 * Abaroa's brave stand was mostly forgotten until recent decades. During the war, things went on so fast that his deed was left largely ignored.
 * Now, on the other hand:
 * It is recorded that Prat's dead became a symbol for Chile during the conflict. He became a martyr, akin to Diego Portales in the War of the Confederation.
 * Similarly, it is record that Grau upheld Peruvian morale during the conflict, and also scared the soul out of the Chilean public (despite, in reality, Grau's Huascar stood no chance against the powerful Blanco and Cochrane).
 * Post-war Grau's and Prat's legacy has certainly been enlarged. Grau has been a particularly important post-war figure for even Bolivia and Chile. However, their post-war glory (while it may now even overshadow their fame during the conflict) does not eliminate the fact that both of these men played an important role during the War of the Pacific. Regards.-- MarshalN20 | T al k 23:52, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

= Unresolved issues =

Issue 38: "Causes of the War" section removal
I removed the "Causes of the War" section included by Keysanger because it is pointless. As user Alexh mentioned long ago, the "Background" section's role is to present the causes of the war. Therefore, there is no need to have a separate section that focuses solely on the opinion of William Sater. Regards.-- MarshalN20 | T al k 23:03, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Albeit these scholarly opinions could be included somewere else in the article... — Chiton magnificus (talk) 14:15, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, the information can be included in other sections. The problem is when a "causes of the war" section is arbitrarily created to solely express the opinions of William Sater. By doing such, it diminishes the importance of the "background" section (including everything you have worked on improving) and only allows the expression of Sater's opinion on the subject (disregarding that of everyone else). Best wishes.-- MarshalN20 | T al k 14:52, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
 * IMHO, The information must be included in the article. --Best regards, Keysanger (what?) 13:02, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Feel free to include it (all of it, if you want) in the places where they belong. However, please do not create a section solely for William Sater. Regards.-- MarshalN20 | T al k 18:03, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
 * My duty is to hint the flaws of the article and to give well founded reasons why it is unbalanced, contradictory, peacock, unreliable, un-encyclopedic, etc and to warn the reader about this. I carried out my duty. I am not here to participate in stupid edit wars. You can try to improve the article or let it as is. --Best regards, Keysanger (what?) 11:14, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Issue 39: Bolivian and Peruvian Depression
The current version of the article contains a complete section about the Economic Depression in Chile but lacks any reference to the Economic circumtances in Bolivia and Peru at that time, which were as troubled as in Chile. This is a clear unbalanced POV.--Best regards, Keysanger (what?) 18:48, 11 June 2012 (UTC)


 * If you have any good sources on the subject, please do feel free to include it in the article.
 * From personal knowledge, you may have luck searching for the economic importance of Cobija (now Cobija, Chile) to Bolivia. For instance, you can explain why Cobija did not develop as an important Pacific port (competition from Callao and Valparaiso), and its relation to Antofagasta. In terms of Peru (and the Atacama), perhaps it would also be wise to expand on the importance of the mineral output of the Atacama.
 * In any case, good luck with that. Best of wishes.-- MarshalN20 | T al k 02:01, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Economic depression
This section of the article handles almost only about the economic ressesion in Chile, and doesn't mention with due weight the situation in Peru and Bolivia. In Bolivia for example, the ten cents tax was an economic measure. --Best regards, KS (wat?) 07:20, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Peruvian mediation
The whole section is a original research of the author, sentences like ''Under the impression that previous Peruvian demands had favored Bolivia, the Chilean government stalled. Chileans were further discomfited...''.

I cite WP:EDITORIALIZING: ''produce implications not supported by the sources. Words such as but, however, and although may imply a relationship between two statements where none exists, perhaps inappropriately undermining the first or giving undue precedence to the credibility of the second. '' --Best regards, KS (wat?) 07:52, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Naval Campaign
The section is confusing because it speaks of a tactical victory to Peru but Nevertheless, it was a Pyrrhic  and later of the Peruvian navy still had some successful actions but but its remaining units were locked.

Moreover, the Captain Grau is named 12 times, more than all Chileans sailors in the whole article. It is very interesting that for the rescue of the Esmeralda sailors, held off the Chilean navy, held off the Chilean navy by Grau, the article uses more than the half of the section. For the desicive action, Angamos and Punta Gruesa, where the Peruvian Navy was destroyed, the article uses only two sentences. --Best regards, KS (wat?) 08:00, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Mutual Defense Treaty of 1873
The whole paragraph presents the setcret treaty as a harmless alliance, but in reality the treaty was one of the causes of the war and during the Lackawamma conference Peru and Bolivia refused to deactivate the pact. It must be said that Chile saw pact as a aggressive one. --Best regards, KS (wat?) 08:03, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Boundary Treaty of 1866
The article says nothing about the Boundary Treaty of 1866.--Best regards, KS (wat?) 08:08, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Pilcomayo, Alay
The article lacks inforrmation about the capture of the Alay and Pilcomayo. --Best regards, KS (wat?) 10:05, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

After the war
the article states:
 * The national treasury grew by 900% between 1879 and 1902 due to taxes coming from the newly acquired lands.[115] British involvement and control of the nitrate industry rose significantly.[116] High nitrate profits lasted for several decades, but fell sharply once synthetic nitrates were developed during World War I. This led to a massive economic breakdown (known as the Nitrate Crisis). Many industrial factories had closed in the early 1880s to provide labor for the extraction industry. Loss of industry dramatically slowed the country's industrial development. When the saltpeter mines closed or became unprofitable, the British companies left the country, destroying many jobs. The former Bolivian region remained the world's richest source of copper and its ports moved trade between nearby countries and the Pacific Ocean. The former Peruvian region suffered because no new sources of wealth appeared after the Nitrate Crisis. 

That doesn't belong to the history of the war and it is mostly speculation of the authors. --Best regards, KS (wat?) 10:15, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Fully funtionally Submarine?
Can anyone add some reference to this statement?. --Best regards, KS (wat?) 11:40, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

About the recent editions
Keysanger, I have very little time now to answer every issue right now, but I noticed that you are systematically making changes that lean the article toward a POV based on the Chilean version of the facts, I remind you -again- that this not your article and that this is not the first time you try to do this, the archives of the talk page are proof of it, I ask you -very politely- to avoid include new information in the article without previously discussing it on this page, I am very busy right now(working) but I have not forgotten for a minute this article and I have no intention of leaving it under your control. Thanks and regards.-- Ian (CloudAOC) | Talk  17:09, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
 * CloudAOC, you have to explain which are the POV passages and why they are POV. Of course I give the reference to the changes. Pls, take it in account when you explain your POV. If you don't have time now, to answer every issue right now, then go and forget it for now. --Best regards, KS (wat?) 09:26, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Actually I have a question, you said above, and removed content, because the sources were Peruvian, but the sources you just used are Chilean, why are those OK but not the Peruvian ones? Darkness Shines (talk) 11:26, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Peruvian Repaso
As User IggyAU in already stated:
 * ...regrettably all the references about the repaso are from peruvian sources...therefore its imperative to point this out in order to protect the integrity of this article....

I have nothing to add to IggysAU words. --Best regards, KS (wat?) 07:16, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi Cloudac,

do you agree to delete the biased theory of Repaso from the article ?. --Best regards, KS (wat?) 10:10, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
 * You do not remove content just because of the nationality of the authors, prove they are unreliable first. Darkness Shines (talk) 15:59, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I am guessing you did not see me previous comment? Darkness Shines (talk) 11:06, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
 * And you have used article tags instead of section tags? Do you not know how to tag a section? Darkness Shines (talk) 11:43, 21 October 2013 (UTC)


 * OK, you are right. I deleted twice. If you think you can improve the tags, please, do it. --Best regards, KS (wat?) 12:12, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Discussion
The disputed text and its refs in plain text are:

After the Battle of Tacna, Chilean troops went as far as to enter field hospitals and execute all soldiers of the opposing Peruvian and Bolivian armies.


 * Reference=
 * Reference=

The repaso further incremented the number of Peruvian casualties in the battles of San Juan, Chorrillos, and Miraflores.
 * Reference=

In the aftermath of the Battle of Huamachuco, Chilean Colonel Alejandro Gorostiaga ordered a repase under the pretext that they formed part of an irregular army and could therefore not be considered prisoners of war.


 * Reference=

Peruvian Colonel Leoncio Prado was among the few soldiers who were not killed during the Huamachuco repase'',
 * Reference=

but was executed shortly thereafter.

That is the sources are
 * 1) Humberto Cayoja Riart El expansionismo de Chile en el Cono Sur
 * 2) Carlos Marнa Muсiz Historia del patriotismo, valor y heroнsmo de la Naciуn peruana en la guerra
 * 3) Jorge Basadre Historia de la Repъblica del Perъ, 1822-1933
 * 4) ? Sociedad Fundadores de la Independencia, Vencedores el Dos de Mayo de 1866 y Defensores Calificados de la Patria, 1943

The only acceptable source is Jorge Basadre Historia de la Repъblica del Perъ, 1822-1933 and must be cited correctly.

Mariano Felipe Paz Soldán, Narracion histórica de la guerra de Chile contra el Perú y Bolivia (a primary source), Humberto Cayoja Riart El expansionismo de Chile en el Cono Sur, Carlos Marнa Muсiz Historia del patriotismo..., ? Sociedad Fundadores de la Independencia, Vencedores el Dos de Mayo de 1866 y Defensores Calificados de la Patria, 1943 are Peruvian patriotic books edited to glamorize the country of Peru. As a historic source they are useless. If we acccept this kind of books, then we have to accept also such books from the other side. Then lost wikipedia any credibility. --Best regards, KS (wat?) 12:12, 21 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Please provide evidence for your claims, otherwise your accusations have no foundation.-- MarshalN20 | T al k 12:32, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
 * MarshalN20 is banned indefinitely from all articles, discussions, and other content related to the history of Latin America, broadly construed across all namespaces. (Indefinite).. --Best regards, KS (wat?) 18:19, 21 October 2013 (UTC)


 * It's also worth pointing out that in this earlier edit (see ), you went as far as to even delete the Jorge Basadre source that you now claim to be "[t]he only acceptable source". Please, Keysanger (or "KS"), you seem to have a major WP:COI (Conflict of Interest) in this topic. I recommend you avoid it.-- MarshalN20 | T al k 12:36, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I be confused, all those sources support the content, why is only one OK? Darkness Shines (talk) 14:04, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
 * In fact, this source Andean Tragedy: Fighting the War of the Pacific, 1879-1884 (used for how lovey dovey they all were in combat) has on the next page a passage on how brutal the Chilean troops actually were. An American observer said out of 600 dead in one battle the most had been killed after surrendering or while wounded. Darkness Shines (talk) 14:15, 21 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Darkness Shines,do you consider "Historia del patriotismo, valor y heroísmo de la Nación peruana en la guerra con Chile" by Carlos Marнa Muсiz a neutral objective and reliable source?. It is written to glamourize the Peruvian Nation. If we want to use this source as reference, we can do it, but then we have to use in-text attribution to the source, as in "According to the opinion of..." . --Best regards, KS (wat?) 18:35, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Darkness Shines, I looked in http://gso.gbv.de/DB=2.1/SET=1/TTL=1/LNG=EN/NXT (37,1 Mio. Titles),but there isn't present any title of Carlos María Muñiz.
 * Can you transcript the parragraph of carlos maria Muñiz's text that support the sentence given in the article?.
 * What do we know about this author?
 * Can you cite any other reference to this unknown book?
 * We have of this book only a title, an author and a webpage of google books (no text), and we know that it was written before 1908, that is a primary source.
 * If you want we can bring the case to the RSN. --Best regards, KS (wat?) 10:08, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Something written before 1908 is not a primary source, you may want to read up on WP:PRIMARY. I have asked an editor to send me the full quote. Who is the publisher for History of Patriotism? You did not respond to a single question put to you. Darkness Shines (talk) 14:33, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Please, stop reverting until the case of User:Marshal is resolved. --Best regards, KS (wat?) 06:53, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I do not give a shite about your admin shopping nor accusations of meat. You can either respond to the questions put to you or what are the point of the tags? Darkness Shines (talk) 12:21, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

I've been keeping an eye on this article for a while, last year I asked the question if there's any movies/TV shows on this war which I was promptly answered by keysanger and Marshal a few days later. Either way concerning the “Repaso”. In my experiences from reading Chilean texts on this war there's absolutely no references on repaso orders ever occurring. The only thing that comes close is the references that some Chilean generals had trouble maintaining infantry discipline after certain battle victories over Peru. In some cases looting and vandalism occurred and in some instances the murder of injured Peruvian soldiers. However the controversy here is that the Peruvian POV indicates that the murders were officially ordered by the Chilean generals as a tactic. There’s a discrepancy in viewpoints here. IMO the repaso story should either be removed or referenced as a Peruvian accusation or similar. Chelios123 (talk) 08:34, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Neither in W. Sater "Andean Tragedy" nor in B. Farcau "Ten Cents War" is any reference to repaso and both are the most comprehesive works about the War in the English literature. The given references, Peruvian sources and most primary sources, include neither the parragraphs nor the page. No editor has delivered reliable sources or the context of Basadres citation. The editor who defends the inclusion of the §s has asked me Who is the publisher for History of Patriotism? . That is, he has no idea what he is doing. I proceed to delete the passage. If we don't get consensus, we can go to the RS Notice Board. --Best regards, KS (wat?) 16:39, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Stop removing it, if all that is needed is attribution then add that. Darkness Shines (talk) 09:40, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't understand the logic in keeping this "repaso" story as "offical" war strategy. It's clearly biased and the authenticity is very suspect. Based on the all sources for this "alleged" event the initial Peruvian historian who proposed the repaso was never actually in Peru when the War broke out. He was based in Argentina, and he publish his allegations there. You can make your own conclusions from that. Either way it's amazing this argument has been happening for well over a year. I applaud the editors who endeavor to keep the integrity of this article intact and I have very little to say for those who find it as their duty to publish and maintain unsubstantiated theories as fact. To sum it up. Repaso is a theory not fact. Chelios123 (talk) 04:04, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Not at all, as I have already pointed out above one of the sources used in this article speaks of no prisoners being taken, and of the wounded being killed. Darkness Shines (talk) 10:05, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Would you be so kind to reproduce here the passage of the text, the author and book you mean it supports the text you added?. Please, don't forget that "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and is satisfied by providing a reliable source that directly supports the material" (WP:BURDEN). Your only word of honour isn't enough in WP. Sorry. --Best regards, KS (wat?) 11:08, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
 * See my comment timestamped 14:15, 21 October 2013 Darkness Shines (talk) 11:13, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but I have not the pleasure of understanding you. There is no passage, no page. Would you be so kind to reproduce here the passage of the text, the author and book you mean it supports the text you added?. Please, don't forget that "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and is satisfied by providing a reliable source that directly supports the material" (WP:BURDEN). Your only word of honour isn't enough in WP. --Best regards, KS (wat?) 13:16, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Do you think its a good idea to move all the repaso theories into a new sub heading titled "Alleged Atrocities". Publishing all that information under war strategy seems inappropriate. what do you think?Chelios123 (talk) 11:17, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Why alleged? Darkness Shines (talk) 15:29, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

I know that in the recent edit I made to the repaso piece I added the phrase "according to some historians". However a fairer supplement to the phrase should say "according to Peruvian historians". The edit should be made ASAP. In the "Secret Mutual Defense Treaty of 1873" part of the article there's a phrase saying "According to the Chilean historian Gonzalo Bulnes, Peru offered Argentina an outlet to the Pacific ocean through Chilean territories" that phrase is obliviously stating a Chilean POV. The repaso is clearly a peruvian POV and therefore an edit is justified for consistency.Chelios123 (talk) 14:00, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Query about this, "Peru offered Argentina an outlet to the Pacific ocean through Chilean territories" Did they ? Darkness Shines (talk) 21:00, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
 * the answers you seek are in the article. Chelios123 (talk) 04:05, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Bolivia consequences paragraph, biased narative
I'm concerned about the Bolivia paragraph on the consequences section of this article. Its common knowledge that historical consequences of the war is still used as a political tool in Bolivia and Peru but this paragraph is clearly using a biased narrative by using words like 'practical' instead of 'political' and the phrase 'Chile for its part has said that there is no question of returning any part of Bolivia's Pacific coast'. In addition to the suspect words and phrases the only source for this paragraph comes from an online news service which to put it lightly isn't a source that Wikipedia should be relying upon. I've tried to make a minor change to the paragraph in question but a "certain user" is reverting my work who seems to be comfortable with the state of the paragraph despite the obvious biased narrative. I apparently broke the 3 revert rule so therefore the status quo must stay. The change I submit is only minor with the sole aim to be neutral. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.212.128.197 (talk) 08:00, 18 March 2014 (UTC)


 * The original paragraph addresses the Bolivian impact of the war by splitting its outcome into an emotional perspective (the popular sentiment after the loss of the coast) and a practical one (the actual economical and geopolitical disadvantages of having no sovereign coast). Your edition disregards the latter as if the war had no such concrete consequences and everything had a pure "political" cause. Downplaying or like in your case, hiding that fact is obvious POV.
 * With respect to your second concern, the cite is misplaced, most of that section is not referenced in the newspaper and should be tagged as such. Windroff (talk) 15:39, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

The Secret Treaty
Hi Cloudac,

why did you delete that the treaty was secret?. Wasn't?. Take a look to the discussion about some time ago. --Best regards, KS (wat?) 17:59, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Depression
Hello Dentren,

I disagree your insertion of text and this because of following reasons:


 * 1) Undue weight: You should know that the causes of the war are a controversial issue. As W. Sater states, the war could has had different causes, political, geopolitical, domestic policies in the three countries, but also economical reasons. To present the economical reason in such a overwhelming manner as you do, is a partial view of the facts and suggests the reader that the economical reasons where the only one. This is also the case of your addition of the template
 * 2) WP:Verifiability : You cite "Palma, Gabriel. Trying to 'Tax and Spend' Oneself out of the 'Dutch Disease': The Chilean Economy from the War of the Pacific to the Great Depression. p. 217-240" at least ten times in the subsection. But in the whole Internet we find neither the text you cited nor a reference or cite to this source. If this text exists, I hope for you that it exists, it is irrelevant because it is not mentioned or edited or cited somewhere. (The only hits founded are from Wikipedia and we will not accept that an Wikipedia article cites another Wikipedia article as reliable source. Should we?)
 * 3) Partial interpretation of facts Your text addition doesn't consider the economic situation in Bolivia, that at least, triggered the war, the imposition of the ten cents over the saltpeter exports. Bolivia suffered also a economic depression but you "forget" it and use more as the half of the inserted text to explain the Chilean economic depression.
 * 4) Abuse of Primary Sources : We don't know in which context President Anibal Pinto said the cited sentence. Wanted he to impress his political adversaries in order to obtain support for his policies in parlament?, Did he meant an hypothetical case?, Wanted he to frighten the Peruvians?. We don't know, but fact is that the cite support your intention to put the Chilean economic crisis as the mayor cause of the war. Wikipedia asks you to: Do not analyze, synthesize, interpret, or evaluate material found in a primary source yourself; instead, refer to reliable secondary sources that do so.

I may remember you that there are two excellent books in English language about the War of the Pacific ("Andean Tragedy" of W. Sater and "The Ten Cents War" of Farcau, Bruce W.) and that they have set exacting requirements for the choice of reliable sources.I would suggest you look into the cited books instead of fringe theories in unknown papers.

--Best regards, KS (wat?) 16:01, 6 July 2014 (UTC)


 * 1. "You should know that the causes of the war are a controversial issue." I know as you also knows. That is why it is important ot give a full background overview, including economic, political and social motifs involved. Regarding the template I see no problem in removing it, albeit it will reduce the possibilities for the readers to go other articles of interest.
 * 2. The paper do exist. Take a look over here
 * 3. The incompletedness of information is no reason to remove content. The sources added are those found available, if you wish to complement them with information about Bolivia feel free to improve.
 * 4. Yes we do know the context, the sources says clearly it is in 1878 in regard to the Long depression in Chile.
 * Dentren |  Ta lk  16:29, 6 July 2014 (UTC)


 * 1. to give a full background overview, including economic, political and social motifs involved that is what your insert doesn't do. It present only the possible economics reasons of the war, and of these it stresses the Chilean crisis. Your insert has 352 words, but only 129 words are related to the situation in Peru and none to the situuation in Bolivia. Moreover your eye-catcher presented the causes of the war as a Chilean problem, of course, I will delete it with your approve.
 * 2. Thanks for the link.
 * 3. I will add a at the right places and add the information later
 * 4. WP recommends not to abuse of primary sources. I will delete it.
 * Please, keep this article in your watchlist, I would like know your opinion regarding some changes I prepared for this article. --Best regards, KS (wat?) 19:56, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Corrections on 13 July
Hi Dentren,

I made some changes and I want to explain you the reasons:
 * 1) ) The name of the company was "Compañía de Salitres y Ferrocarril de Antofagasta" (CSFA) and the persistent use of the English name leads to the presupposition that it was a British company. It was not.
 * 2) ) A big part of the tensions in the region were due to the Peruvian economy problems and their grasp for the monopoly of Salpeter. I added this to the LEDE with the respective reference to the Peruvian source.
 * 3) ) The Chilean occupation of Antofagasta occurred after the CONFISCATION of the CSFA and not a threat of confiscation. Moreover, 14 February was the date of the auction.
 * 4) ) I moved, complete and unchanged, the paragraph "Bolivia and Chile disputed the Atacama region. Claiming territory acc ..." to the subsection "Treaty 1866"
 * 5) ) The Secret Treaty was secret and it must be said. To call it only a Mutual defence treaty is POV.
 * 6) ) I renamed the subsection "crisis" to "10 cents tax" because it is only a part of the history and it is not the "complete" crisis. I added a lot of interesting data from Querejazu and Peruvians historians. Somewhere get down the story of the Junta Municipal, but it isn't important because their proposal of the 10 cents tax was continued in La Paz with another argument, the no-approval of the license by the B. Congress. --Best regards, KS (wat?) 18:13, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Corrections 15 July
Hi Dentren,

I made some changes and I want to explain you the reasons:
 * 1) ) From 5 April to middle August (Capture of the Huascar) are 4.5 Months. That is far of one year.
 * 2) ) I moved all the sentences about the Peruvian Monopoly in the resp. new subsection.

The other changes are obvious. --Best regards, KS (wat?) 20:45, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Personal attacks
According to WP:TALK, Stay on topic: '' Talk pages are for discussing the article, not for general conversation about the article's subject (much less other subjects). Keep discussions focused on how to improve the article. Comments that are plainly irrelevant are subject to archival or removal.''

So, I removed the personal attack of the editor against me. I am not "Anti-Peru" nor can be said, w/o any explain, that my edits are bad article manipulation that are meant to be anti-peru.

Moreover, without any concrete reference to reliable sources, the deleted comments are the personal opinion of its author or authors, contradict the clause Stay objective: ''Talk pages are not a forum for editors to argue their personal point of view about a controversial issue. ''

Please, consider that in a talk page: Comment on content, not on the contributor: Keep the discussions focused upon the topic of the talk page, rather than on the personalities of the editors contributing to the talk page.

If someone has still doubts why I remove the sentences, please take a look to WP:TALK. --Best regards, KS (wat?) 20:47, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I have doubts on your interpretation of the guideline see WP:TPO. I have restored the comment you removed, do not remove it again as you have now removed it twice. Darkness Shines (talk) 21:32, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

I make no "personal attack" on anyone. I write only what I see. User:Keysanger says to "stay objective", but their edits is biased and this hurts article content. I studied of Saltpeter War in two classes at Universidad de Chile. I know many people like user:Keysnager that are anti-Peru and anti-Bolivia. I can provide evidence to stop this person from biasing article. Gracias. Eduardo Eddy Ramirez (talk) 15:36, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Escaped, began-sharpened, Chilean Tax?
I made some changes regarding the wording of the article and I hope to meet the WP standards:

--Best regards, KS (wat?) 16:22, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Escaped: The Chilean Version of this fight was that they won the battle, so to say they "escaped" from the Peruvians ships is in any case a Peruvian view. I think the word "fought" is more neutral.
 * The crisis began with the approbation of the 10 cents tax by the Bolivian Congress, or before as the Boundary Treaty was signed. In any case not with the occupation of Antofagasta. I use the term "sharpened".
 * To say that the Chileans protested because the Chileans imposed a 10 cents tax is stupid. It was a Bolivian tax, imposed by the Bolivian Government and approved by Bolivian Congress.


 * Everyone with education in Chile knows Antofagasta was run by Chileans. Why you call that "stupid"? The only protest was from the salitrera company, not the Chileans in Antofagasta. Once our national army made it to city everyone cheered, but before only salitera company was making trouble. Eduardo Eddy Ramirez (talk) 16:10, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Dubious sources
Hi Dentren,

As I pointed out some time ago, the use of primary sources (Cáceres, Andrés. "Memorias de la guerra del 79") or "patriotic books" ("El expansionismo de Chile en el Cono Sur", "Historia del patriotismo, valor y heroнsmo de la Naciуn peruana en la guerra") is not supported by Wikipedia. I hope you can provide reliable sources for this extreme views. I add again the tag, that had been deleted without discussion. --Best regards, KS (wat?) 12:55, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

User:Darkness Shines. Diego Barros Arana is also "primary source" with extreme patriotic views. Why user:keysanger use that (2 books in bibliography) and demand others ("I hope you can provide") to do opposite thing for Peru? This an example of biased editing. Eduardo Eddy Ramirez (talk) 16:01, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Barros Arana is cited at 96 with Spanish language: "Cuando el enemigo ha tomado posesión efectiva de una parte del territorio, el gobierno del otro estado deja de ejercer alli el poder. Los habitantes del territorio ocupado están eximidos de todos los deberes i obligaciones respecto del gobierno anterior, i están obligados a obedecer a los jefes del ejército de ocupación"

This translates as a justifying death threats and war crimes. How is this good "no patrotic" source? Eduardo Eddy Ramirez (talk) 16:04, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Keysanger, I seem to recall at that time why you felt these sources were of no use, yet at the same time you were pushing the use of nationalist books which supported your POV. Perhaps you could explain this now? Darkness Shines (talk) 16:10, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Crisis/War
Hi Cloudac,

The war didn't began on 14 February. In fact the city of Antofagasta was populated 95% by Chileans and there are sources that confirm the celebrations in the streets of Antofagasta. If you want to mark the beginning of the war, I propose the day of the Bolivian Declaration of war on Chile. --Best regards, KS (wat?) 17:59, 27 May 2014 (UTC)


 * History books in Spanish and English says war started when our army invaded Antofagasta. Why you claim opposite?


 * Evidence: In book "Bolivia y Chile: desatando nudos" the author writes (page 66) that "La invasion chilena de Antofagasta producida el 14 de febrero de 1879 dio inicio a la Guerra del Pacifico."


 * This translates as War of the Pacific started in February 14, 1879, when we invade Bolivia. Eduardo Eddy Ramirez (talk) 16:22, 21 July 2014 (UTC)


 * This again evidence of bias editing. Eduardo Eddy Ramirez (talk) 16:23, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Anti-peru edits by the user:keysanger
Seeing many new edits by the user "keysanger" reflect a bad article manipulation that are meant to be anti-peru. This user has an agenda with bias editing that is against peru. Mr Wales & Wikipedia staff, please make appropriate corrections. I have page now in "User:Eduardo Eddy Ramirez"
 * Which, what, where, why, who, when?. --Best regards, KS (wat?) 07:16, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I explain below which where who when what whatever. "Best regards" Eduardo Eddy Ramirez (talk) 15:23, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

I deleted this post previously because there were serious accusations about personal behavior on a fellow editor that lacked evidence (according to WP:WIAPA the post constitutes a Personal Attack). Serious accusations require serious evidence. Evidence often takes the form of diffs and links presented on wiki. The user that posted the accusations seems to be new with wiki so I would encourage that user to follow up on this link WP:WIAPA. If the user can't provide any evidence I would encourage keysanger to delete the post ASAP and possibly speak to a wikipedia administrator (not Mr. Wales) if the post is continually being reverted back. I got nothing more to say.

I provide serious evidence very pronto. No worry on that. Eduardo Eddy Ramirez (talk) 16:00, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Evidence bias edits by user:keysanger and user:sietecolores
User:Darkness Shines I look back article history and see many bad biased edits. I list them here for all eyes:
 * 1) On May 16, 2014 : Sietecolores deletes massive source text in the consequences section. Information deleted is my country's return stolen books to Peru, my country rise in influence and help to Peru rival Ecuador, the anti-indigenous response in Peru, and information about famous Peruvian Miguel Grau. Terrible edit removes over 6,000 kb of value information.
 * 2) On May 25, 2014 : Keysanger manipulates text to remove war begins when my country invades Antofagasta.
 * 3) On May 27, 2014 : Keysanger repeats same bad edit.
 * 4) On June 2, 2014 : Keysanger rewords lede information, but again manipulates text because article says something else: "On March 24, Peru responded to Chile and Bolivia by proposing that the Peruvian Congress debate both Chile's neutrality proposal and the Bolivian request for military action under the alliance on April 24" (that no says Peru refuses anything)
 * 5) On June 9, 2014 : Keysanger removes Peru and Bolivia commanders from summary box at top.
 * 6) On June 9, 2014 : Keysanger removes text on Chile economic troubles. Why? This is true and sourced. Educated people in Chile know the history.
 * 7) On June 18, 2014 : Keysanger again manipulates text. Antofagasta was filled with people from my country, many workers, and they also ran government in city. Why delete this text?
 * 8) On June 18, 2014 : Keysanger removes text on rescue of Chile sailors by Peru Miguel Grau, and deletes my country's national hero Arturo Prat from text.
 * 9) On July 8, 2014 : Keysanger shows anger at restoration of deleted text by User:Dentren and tags in retaliation. How this friendly atmosphere editing?
 * 10) On July 11, 2014 : Editor 210.50.244.119 deletes text writing true cause of war was my country's economic problems and ambition. This topic discussed much in my class in Universidad de Chile, but still relevant
 * 11) From July 11 up to 20, 2014 : Includes text manipulation like "As unenviable Chile’s situation was, that of Peru was much worse"
 * 12) On July 18, 2014 : Editor 210.50.244.119 removes text on the racial supremacy ideology in Chile. This is very big issue in my country even to this day.

All this shows article manipulation to reflect anti-Peru and anti-Bolivia text. This bad editing needs correction, and users mentioned need to be removed from participation in article. Gracias Eduardo Eddy Ramirez (talk) 18:23, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

And I find this only going two pages back in article history. I only imagine how long this has been happening??? Eduardo Eddy Ramirez (talk) 18:24, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

I look back more and also find this edit where User:Cloudaoc fixes bad text that (surprise!) Keysanger wrote in article. Why this user:Keysanger not prohibited from editing this topic? Mr. Wales or Wikipedia staff cannot place topic restriction on this person? Eduardo Eddy Ramirez (talk) 18:37, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Regarding my edit the deletion of content was done after I created the article Consequences of the War of the Pacific. So that no sourced content was removed from Wikipedia, I was just moved to make this article more compact. No biased editing there. Sietecolores (talk) 20:08, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I see that as text manipulation. You create article and delete all content from here to transfer there? You should leave some reference of text here in short and not delete all. Bad editing is bad. Eduardo Eddy Ramirez (talk) 15:07, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Next you delete what for "compact" purpose? Will you create separate article for murders in "Operacion Condor" and delete all murder text from it to make more "compact" article? As I says: bad editing is bad. No reason exists Eduardo Eddy Ramirez (talk) 15:10, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

All the improvements in the article in the last couple of months have all been well explained or have been supplemented with good sources as accordance with Wikipedia protocols. The above section very much intends to discredit the improvements by simply disregarding the explanations and sources provided and for all intents and purposes the above section is simply a very long diatribe against those editors who have made improvements. Furthermore there's no evidence to suggest that this article contains passages that can be considered bigoted towards Bolivia and Peru. The above section contains no diffs and links to even explicitly suggest that. 210.50.202.97 (talk) 22:06, 21 July 2014 (UTC)


 * @Ramirez: what you are seeing, are well explained and referenced changes. As example I will take your second case. I changed the word "war" by "crisis" in the sentence about 14 February and added the word "secret" to the treaty description. The landing in Antofagasta was hardly a military action, no fight was needed since Antofagasta already had a population comprised of 95% of Chileans. There are primary and secondary sources that state the celebrations in the streets of Antofagasta after the landings. The subsequent (and real) military actions took place after the parliament of Bolivia authorized a declaration of war on Chile some 12 days after the landing. About the treaty, read the text of treaty and you will understand why the treaty is called secret. --Keysanger (Talk) 15:12, 22 July 2014 (UTC)


 * On October 19, 2013, Keysanger writes "deleted POV, folklore, and some unnecessary refs to well known facts" to delete over 13,000 KB of text from article. How this good "explained and referenced"? So bias "with explanation" is good bias? Eduardo Eddy Ramirez (talk) 15:16, 22 July 2014 (UTC)


 * User:Darkness Shines and User:Dentren and User:Cloudaoc. Look all see this text from William Sater (I own book):
 * "The War of the Pacific can be divided into six periods. The first, and shortest, began with Chile's capture of the Bolivian seaport of Antofagasta in February 1870 and ended a few days later when Santiago had occupied the rest of the Atacama Desert."
 * Text is in page 19 of his book "Andean Tragedy"
 * Above you see Keysanger explain his bias edit, but source says otherwise. War starts when my country invades Antofagasta, everyone knows that except Keysanger and his friends.
 * Why no topic ban been applied this user? I says again: Bad editing is bad. Eduardo Eddy Ramirez (talk) 15:20, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

What I've seen so far are attempted invalidation of improvements over the last couple of months which appears now to be based solely on the discontent of one editor. Like I said before I would encourage the accused to seriously consider speaking to an administrator if the behavior demonstrated above is continuing. Honestly I'm yet to see the proverbial 'smoking gun' that demonstrates an edit or passage in the article that can be deemed discriminatory towards Bolivia and Peru as per the original allegation. 210.50.202.97 (talk) 17:38, 22 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Source the "World Book Encyclopedia": "The War of the Pacific began as a quarrel between Bolivia and Chile over control of certain Bolivian nitrate deposits. As a result of the dispute, Chile invaded Bolivia in 1879, marking the start of the war."
 * I write now that in text article. Eduardo Eddy Ramirez (talk) 22:03, 22 July 2014 (UTC)


 * English not so good. Help with write . Gracias Eduardo Eddy Ramirez (talk) 22:06, 22 July 2014 (UTC)


 * I check archives and find problems with Keysanger start in 2009 . Five years of bias edits. how terrible Eduardo Eddy Ramirez (talk) 22:39, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Guano, salitre, sangre: historia de la Guerra del Pacífico
Anyone got access to this source? I should like to know, author, publisher and if it has "when Chilean armed forces, enthusiastic welcomed by the population" are actually present in the source. Darkness Shines (talk) 21:12, 23 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Book is reference in Sater book. Is true that Antofagasta was happy to have Chile take control. This why war is not consider conquest in my country. War is seen as taking what belongs us before land deal with Bolivia. But that no mean war no start when we invade the Bolivia controlled city. Authors say so in spanish and english. Eduardo Eddy Ramirez (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 16:35, 24 July 2014 (UTC)


 * The text in Querejazu in page 248 states:
 * Mientras el Capitan Borgono llevaba y traia las cinco misivas que cambiaron Sotomayor y Zapata, 100 Marinos y 100 artilleros chilenos desembarcaron y tomaron posesion del puerto, ante la alborozada expectacion de sus compatriotas que recorrian las calles lanzando vivas a su patria
 * I hope your curiosity is satisfied. I revert your last changes. --Keysanger (Talk) 18:24, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

I find it childish to discuss when the war began. With the first declaration of war?, with the occupation?, with the first battle?. with the first deadly cases?. I would say that a war begin with the first Point of no Return, today mostly when the first soldier die. An occupation doesn't mean a war immediately. As an example, take the case of the Falklands Islands. There have been "occupations" of French, Spaniards, Brits, Argentine, and US-Americans. Every of this occupations have been protested by another power. The first settlers, French, were occupyng a country within the Spanish region of the Tordesillas Treaty.

I would prefer my first wording, without mention of the beginning of the war. But if you find it important to set the date of the beginning, no problem. --Keysanger (Talk) 18:45, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
 * What part of not RS do you not understand? weaponsandwarfare.com is not, and also does not support "Some authors set the beginning" Darkness Shines (talk) 20:41, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Second revert of my edits
æDarkness Shines: if you haven't the books, it is your problem. I delivered the refs and the text containing the facts. Querejazu is a well known Bolivian historian beyond any criticism about his work. You may belive him or not, but he is a well known hiostorian. Please, stop reverting. Last warning.

About Querejazu, http://www.librosmaravillosos.com/aclaracionesguerrapacifico/ states:


 * LIBRERÍA Y EDITORIAL "JUVENTUD" considera que el señor Roberto Querejazu Calvo es el historiador boliviano que más tiempo y esfuerzo ha dedicado al estudio de la Guerra del Pacífico, tanto en archivos y bibliotecas nacionales como de otros países y que, como resultado de esa investigación de varios años, es quien con más autoridad, ecuanimidad y veracidad ha relatado la historia de ese trágico episodio de la vida de nuestra Patria en su libro "GUANO, SALITRE, SANGRE" y en numerosos artículos de prensa.

--Keysanger (Talk) 20:47, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Last warning, or what? Lol, I have already added a decent reference, you have argued here that chilien sources are no good, same argument stands for Bolivian ones. Darkness Shines (talk) 20:58, 24 July 2014 (UTC)


 * @Darkness Shines:
 * I kept your reference (Isabel Allende) untouched
 * I never argued here that Chilean/Peruvian/Bolivian sources are no good. But only Chilean/Peruvian/Bolivian sources could be wrong, if the issue is controversial. That is not the case.
 * The welcome of the Chilean troops occurred also on 14 February and a consequence of the landing. That is not OR as you want to invent.
 * Stop reverting and your disruptive editing unless you want to get your name again in a noticeboard. I am observing carefully your behaiviour.
 * --Keysanger (Talk) 17:01, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Diddums, I said this was OR "Some authors set the beginning ", you will note that is not supported by the crappy reference you added, which I also told you is not RS as it is self published. You are also giving undue weight to the welcome the troops received, it has no place in the lede, which is why I clarified that in the section it belongs in, so I will revert you, and you may want to read the old WP:BRD essay. Darkness Shines (talk) 17:08, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Article protected
Protected until 27 September 2014 per this complaint at WP:AN3 (permalink). Protection can be lifted if consensus is reached. During the protection, you can use Edit protect here on the talk page to ask for changes to be made that have consensus. EdJohnston (talk) 20:44, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 28 August 2014
Isn't "interethnic" misspelled here? "But there were also interetnic tensions under blacks and coolies."

Isn't this a fragment? "The land campaign climaxed in 1881, with the Chilean occupation of Lima."

These two sentences have "Pacific" capitalized and "ocean" lower case: "According to the Chilean historian Gonzalo Bulnes, Peru offered Argentina an outlet to the Pacific ocean through Chilean territories.[23]" and "The true causes of the conflict are not economic but geopolitical: a struggle for control of the southwestern portion of the Pacific ocean."

Doesn't this sentence need a comma after "discontinuity?" "On the one hand, there was the power, prestige, and relative stability of Chile compared to the economic deterioration and political discontinuity which characterised both Peru and Bolivia after independence."

Joel.sbateman (talk) 19:56, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Yellow check.svg Partly done: I've fixed most of these. I wasn't sure how you wanted the fragment to be fixed, so I just removed the comma. Also, I haven't changed the comma after "discontinuity", as that is part of a quotation, and we try to keep quotations true to the original as much as possible. (See Quotations for common practice.) If you want to give the article a more in-depth copy edit, copy it to a sandbox page somewhere (maybe User:Joel.sbateman/sandbox), make the edits there, and then make another edit request here. Then an admin can copy your sandbox version into the article for you. Best — Mr. Stradivarius  ♪ talk ♪ 15:05, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Request to close the discussion of the RfC
I propose reverting the lede of this article to this revision, that is "The War of the Pacific started on February 14" back to "The crisis sharpened on February 14"

Reason for change: See more under Talk:War of the Pacific. --Keysanger (Talk) 18:57, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
 * 1) Only some sources set the start of the war on 14. February and then very superficially. Others authors set it to different dates.
 * 2) Authors who make a in-depth examination of the start of the war (Farcau, Sater, Basadre, Manrique and Pike for example) state, with different wording ("if the war started", "a real war would occur", "after all, no blood had yet shed", "to postpone it [the war]", "but nothing irreversible was to occur for some time", "to seek a formula for preserving peace", or "the war was imminent"), that weeks after the 14. February there was no war between Chile and Bolivia-Peru.
 * 3) Neither on 14 February nor weeks later occurred any battle, skirmish or similar.


 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: Sorry, but you need a consensus for your edit before you use the edit protected template. If you haven't found a consensus through this talk page, then dispute resolution is the way to go. Perhaps the dispute resolution noticeboard would be a good start if you haven't tried that already. Best — Mr. Stradivarius  ♪ talk ♪ 23:29, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Would you be so kind to tell me which are, in your opinion, the arguments of DS+EM which hasn't been refuted?. Please, consider for your answer WP:ROUGH CONSENSUS. Thanks in advance, --Keysanger (Talk) 04:21, 2 September 2014 (UTC)