Talk:War of the Pacific/Archive 6

Gonzalo Bulnes: Reliable or Not Reliable?
The following source from Gonzalo Bulnes, of his book "Guerra del Pacifico," holds no section where it cites the works he has gathered his information from:. The information Bulnes provides is, up to a certain point, important. However, the article is being heavily cited by the works of Gonzalo Bulnes. Bulnes, a Chilean historian and politician, provides a heavily biased Chilean POV in his works. I've read parts of his book "Guerra del Pacifico," and found text such as this: "Alentado probablemente por el Ministro peruano, Daza inaugura una politica de atropellos, conforme a 10s procedimientos que usaba en el gobierno interior" "Probably urged by the Peruvian minister, Daza inaugurates an aggressive policy, conformed to the 10 proceedings that he used in the interior government" In other words, his works hold no references and have his own POV on the matter ("Probably" is POV. "Aggressive Policy" without references is POV). Therefore, I don't think that this is something that the article should use as a single reliable source for exceptional claims. Bulnes does provide points that the article needs, but I believe we should reach a compromise when mentioning this author:
 * 1)Whenever citing Bulnes, the information cannot be taken as a complete fact (It can and should be challenged when appropiate).
 * 2)The phrase "According to Chilean historian Gonzalo Bulnes" is a requirement in order to specifically mention the person who is providing the information.

What do the rest of you think?--//&#91;*&#93;MarshalN20&#91;*&#93;\\ (talk) 23:36, 9 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I think Gonzalo Bulnes is a reliable source.


 * What do you think about http://www.larazon.com.pe/online/indice.asp ? --Keysanger (talk) 11:18, 10 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I've tried to search for more information regarding the newspaper "La Razon." After looking around for more verification on its reliable status, I really could not find much of anything aside from a series of names of people. It doesn't seem to me to be a completely reliable source, so if you (or anybody else) wants to use it in the article it should be with extreme care of only taking the information for what it is and not for what it might be made look.--//&#91;*&#93;MarshalN20&#91;*&#93;\\ (talk) 01:22, 11 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I concur with Keysanger this time. Gonzalo Bulnes is a well known Chilean historian. And as most historians, he writes from a documented point of view. I would even argue that most sources (including encyclopedias such as Britannica) have a POV, and ultimately there’s nothing wrong with that, as it is us as contributors that must comply with NPOV, not the source.


 * Regarding the other two points you raise.


 * 1)I would agree with you if it was changed to; whenever citing X the information can and should be challenge if another reliable source contradicts it.


 * 2)I don’t agree with the proposal of adding according to Chilean historian Gonzalo Bulnes because then we would have to add that kind of "intro" to every single source for the sake of uniformity and neutrality. Imagine an article cluttered with according to Peruvian writer X, according to Peruvian newspaper, according to American/British journalist and so on.
 * In the end it would just be a mess.
 * I understand, however, that relying too heavily on Bulnes (or any other single sources for that matter), might not give an overall balance to the article. And that’s why we should try to diversify our sources.


 * But in order to give some kind of solution, and although I don’t see it as necessary, we could add a notation within the reference stating the nationality of the writer in case someone feels it is relevant and it should be mentioned.
 * Likeminas (talk) 13:56, 10 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Once again, you make good points Likeminas. I understand your position on including the "According to x historian." However, my main concern still remains open. Gonzalo Bulnes might be as much of a respected or "well known" historian in Chile, but from the information that was provided as reference for Bulnes (The "War of the Pacific" PDF file) there is no Works Cited page or a full list of where he got his information from. I've read other similar historical books, such as King Leopold's Ghost, and the author at the end of his book provides a full list of sources where he got his information from. In other words, how can we certify that Bulnes isn't making up the information if he hasn't provided official references to his work?--//&#91;*&#93;MarshalN20&#91;*&#93;\\ (talk) 01:22, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Gonzalo Bulnes delivered a lot of Primary sources like the english version of the 1873 treaty the Godoy papers, (the Chilean Plenipotentiary Minister in Lima) and many of the correspondence between the "parties involved": Lavalle, Godoy, Irigoyen etc. His interpretations of the facts are Chile-biased, yes. But we have to separate the facts from the interpretations and write facts as facts and views of the facts as views of the facts. As Likeminas stated, every writer, we also, shows a tendency to confound it. Diferent is the case when we want to reproduce the Chilean interpretation of the facts. Therefor is Gonzalo Bulnes (1851-1936) an excelent source: he was diputado, Senator and Ex-Plenipotentiary Minister and ex-Extraordinary Ambassador of Chile in the Argentine Republic. He was in midstream.

--Keysanger (talk) 12:48, 11 July 2009 (UTC)


 * What you mention further makes Bulnes seem to be a dubious source. He's a historian that was, according to what you mention, heavily involved in Chilean politics. The information Bulnes provides is important, however. Nonetheless, it still seems to be danger to base controversial points on Bulnes. The best thing to do is to find other reliable sources that can work alongside with Bulne's information.--//&#91;*&#93;MarshalN20&#91;*&#93;\\ (talk) 18:36, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Argentina's stance
I think that this particular section of the article would be better suited for the "Characteristics of the War" section. It really wasn't part of the "Crisis" as only the Peruvians and Bolivians knew about this. Chile did not find out about the possible integration of Argentina until later on. What do the rest of you think?--//&#91;*&#93;MarshalN20&#91;*&#93;\\ (talk) 03:41, 10 July 2009 (UTC)


 * No, I disagree, because Argentina was directly envolved problems leading to the war, and was a threath for Chile during the war. See Treaty 1881 between Chile and Argentina --Keysanger (talk) 11:21, 10 July 2009 (UTC)


 * IMO, If we want to make the article flow and be read in a chronological manner, including all relevant events leading up to the actual war, then, the subsection The Argentine stance seems well placed.
 * Likeminas (talk) 14:07, 10 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Your point does not make sense Keysanger. Argentina might have been a threat to Chile throughout its existance as a nation, but it still had nothing to do with the crisis leading to the War of the Pacific. Likeminas, your argument is logical in terms of the chronology of the article. However, I still don't think that "Argentina's Stance" fits in correctly within the crisis section. Argentina wasn't part of the crisis leading up to the war (It might have been if Chile had found out about the possible Argentine intervention, but such a thing did not happen until the war was already over).--//&#91;*&#93;MarshalN20&#91;*&#93;\\ (talk) 02:17, 11 July 2009 (UTC)


 * As such, I think that we should develop a new section after "Crisis" in order to better fit in the matter. What I'm thinking is a section under a title similar to: "World Perspectives" or "World views on the war." Under that section we could:

1) Add Argentina's perspective on the war (and their possible involvement). 2) Add what the French and British thought about the war (They were by-standers throughout the whole war), and if they provided any support. 3) Add the US interests (they were also involved as by-standers, and later in the article it mentions that they provided support for Peru's continued resistance). What do the rest of you think? (Come up with a better title for the section, if you can or want).--//&#91;*&#93;MarshalN20&#91;*&#93;\\ (talk) 02:17, 11 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree Marshal, it is a good idea such "World Perspectives", I think there are a lot to say about, but we will find many other places where Argentina has to be, at least, mentioned. I think a chapter "International law" could be interesting. I wrote something about conventions regarding Chile and J.Besadre mention the Red Cross in Peru. Both Chapters could be merged also. --Keysanger (talk) 12:04, 11 July 2009 (UTC)


 * the contribution was :


 * The Chilean government under President Aníbal Pinto Garmendia let print a book "El derecho de la guerra según los últimos progresos de la civilización"'' with the following laws:


 * ''the International Declaration concerning the Laws and Customs of War. Brussels, 27 August 1874
 * ''St. Petersburg Declaration of 1868 or full Declaration Renouncing the Use, in Time of War, of Explosive Projectiles Under 400 Grammes Weight
 * ''International Red Cross founded 1863
 * ''Instructions for the Government of Armies of the United States in the Field, General Order Nr 100


 * ''and intructed the officers of the army and the navy to comply with.

--Keysanger (talk) 12:12, 11 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Sounds great Keysanger. So then it's settled (the section will be formed). Where should it be placed? After the "Crisis" section, or after the "War" section?--//&#91;*&#93;MarshalN20&#91;*&#93;\\ (talk) 18:39, 11 July 2009 (UTC)