Talk:War of the Pacific/Archive 7

Mediation of defensive/offensive issue.
Hi, I have volunteered as a neutral mediator per the wp:medcab request filed by MarshalN20. First off, I would like to know if everyone that is involved with this agrees to participate in the mediation. Please indicate so after your name.


 * User:Keysanger --Keysanger (talk) 19:10, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 * User:LikeminasLikeminas (talk) 18:55, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 * User:ArafaelArafael (talk) 18:44, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 * User:MarshalN20--//&#91;*&#93;MarshalN20&#91;*&#93;\\ (talk) 02:42, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

If there are any other interested parties, please add your name and whether you agree or disagree with mediation. I'm not here to take sides, just to try to help you all work it out.

Does everyone also agree with framing the question as such:

"Was the Peru-Bolivia alliance defensive or offensive?" Please comment below if you disagree that that is the issue. Gigs (talk) 02:02, 16 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Just a couple of points. The medcab case hasn't been correctly updated. New events have User:Keysanger providing sources that back part of his statement (It claims the alliance to be both Defensive and Offensive). However, the problem still remains the same: "Was the Peru-Bolivia alliance defensive or offensive?" In one of the above discussions, User:Keysanger wants to mention that the alliance was "Officially titled defensive," but does not want to say that the alliance "was officially defensive." Essentially, this is where the problem has gotten stuck. We need an arbitrator, in this case you Gigs, that can help identify a solution to the problem. Thanks for volunteering to take care of the case.--//&#91;*&#93;MarshalN20&#91;*&#93;\\ (talk) 02:42, 16 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I think the evidence that the treaty was defensive is well supported by various sources. Nonetheless, there's also evidence that the treaty was 'seen, thought or understood by Chile as offensive to its interests.
 * I believe that if both claims can be positevely verified through reliable sources, then, both claims should be presented in the article in order to comply with NPOV.


 * In any case, thanks for taking the time to mediate.]
 * Likeminas (talk) 18:55, 16 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree with mediation. I disagree with the given framing and amend Marshal's view of my opinion. My statement is: Wikipedia shouldn't decide through logical und/or semantical analisys whether the pact was defensive/offensive because such analisys lacks the political, economic and military circumstances and implications of the pact. Wikipedia have to talk about interpretations of the pact, with the needed references of course. Having said this we have that the pact was interpreted as defensive and offensive and that the pact was "officially titled defensive" and not "officially defensive". I consider this mediation valid also for Treaty of defensive alliance between Peru and Bolivia of 1873, the main article. Thanks for volunteering to take care of the case. --Keysanger (talk) 19:09, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

What comes after this? Should we discuss the matter here or will you, Gigs, create a specific section were you'll monitor the discussion?--//&#91;*&#93;MarshalN20&#91;*&#93;\\ (talk) 19:52, 16 July 2009 (UTC)


 * "there's also evidence that the treaty was 'seen, thought or understood by Chile as offensive to its interests." Let me just say that I agree with that statement. We, as in me and Keysanger, reached consensus on the statement that Chile saw the treaty/alliance Peru-Bolivia as a menace to it. However, the question at hand is whether the treaty itself was offensive to Chile (was it aimed at Chile?) or whether if it was purely defensive (was it aimed at solely the protection of Peru and Bolivia from foreign countries?). This is the question that currently nobody has reached consensus with; as far as that concerns the matter, both me and User:Arafael agree that the alliance was purely defensive. Keysanger is of the opposing view. I'm not sure about Likeminas, though.--//&#91;*&#93;MarshalN20&#91;*&#93;\\ (talk) 19:58, 16 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I never said the pact was purely offensive. I have always said: It is a matter of interpretation. That is the point, interpretation. --Keysanger (talk) 20:12, 16 July 2009 (UTC)


 * This is an exact quote from you: "the actions Hilarion Daza took to turn the defensive alliance into an offensive alliance were successful."--//&#91;*&#93;MarshalN20&#91;*&#93;\\ (talk) 20:38, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

There is a difference:


 * to turn the defensive alliance into an offensive alliance (Keysanger's)
 * it was purely offensive

The first statement implies the dynamic of interpretation, opportunities and posibilities given by the pact and the circumtances, the second doesn't allow an alternative. I am thinking of the proverb Attack is the best means of defense. I attach great importance to state that both interpretations (defensive/offensive) are posible and of importance for the involved countries and therefore the sentence it was a defensive pact cann't be used. We have to say, like in Venezuela and Hitler-Stalin Pact regarding the official names "bolivarian Republic" and "non-aggression pact" the neutral one officially titled.

--Keysanger (talk) 21:03, 16 July 2009 (UTC)


 * It goes beyond the realm of reason to use "officially titled" as some sort of neutral ground to something that requires no neutral ground. Once again, a direct quote from you: "the dynamic of interpretation, opportunities and posibilities given by the pact and the circumtances." There can be no dynamic change for a defensive alliance/treaty that had no other use than that. The defensive alliance/treaty came into effect only after Chile declared war on Peru and Bolivia. Where's the "interpretation" there? Gigs, do you see any WP:OR in there or anything of personal "interpretation"?--//&#91;*&#93;MarshalN20&#91;*&#93;\\ (talk) 22:05, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Marshal: It goes beyond the realm of reason to use "officially titled" as some sort of neutral ground to something that requires no neutral ground

Keysanger: Neutral point of view is a core policy of Wikipedia, mandatory, non-negotiable, and to be followed in all articles.

Marshal: There can be no dynamic change for a defensive alliance/treaty that had no other use than that.

Keysanger: What kind of use, defensive or offensive?. We know that some historians maintain a different view than your. And Wikipedia's source are historians and not opinions of wikipedians.

Marshal:The defensive alliance/treaty came into effect only after Chile declared war on Peru and Bolivia.

Keysanger: That says nothing about the question defensive or offensive. Hitler invaded Russia 1941 and the Pact is still (2009) officially titled "non-aggression pact".

Marshal: Where's the "interpretation" there?

Keysanger: That is your personal opinion: The defensive alliance/treaty came into effect …. You again try to explain us why the Pact is defensive. We have to work with sources. Your explain is WP:OR

--Keysanger (talk) 23:35, 16 July 2009 (UTC)


 * That's just crazy talk Keysanger! You're using my statements and twisting yours in order to make yourself sound credible. That's just cheap.--//&#91;*&#93;MarshalN20&#91;*&#93;\\ (talk) 13:45, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Some sources favoring the POV that the treaty was not seen, thought, interpreted or undertood as purely defensive:

A comienzos de 1870, Perú pasaba por un mal período económico, ya que el guano -fertilizante natural del cual procedían las principales ganancias fiscales- estaba agotado, mientras el salitre, producto que lo reemplazaba, estaba en manos de particulares. La única solución era eliminar a nuestro país como competidor en la extracción del salitre, para traspasar la propiedad de las salitreras al Estado y poseer el monopolio. Fue a raíz de esto que Perú y Bolivia firmaron un tratado secreto ofensivo y defensivo contra Chile, donde ambas naciones se apoyarían en caso de guerra.

Translation

“In early 1870, Peru was going through a bad economic period, as the guano-derived natural fertilizer which produced major tax revenues was exhausted, while nitrate -its substitute- was in private hands.

The only solution was to remove Chile as a competitor in the extraction of saltpeter, and then transfer the ownership of the nitrate to the [Peruvian] state and hold a monopoly. It was after this that Peru and Bolivia signed a secret treaty offensive and defensive against Chile, where both nations would support each other in the event of war.”

http://www.quepasa.cl/medio/articulo/0,0,38035857__147601895__1,00.html

…………The secret treaty of the of Febreaury 6, 1873 needs to no lengthy examination to ascertain its object; and the reserve in which it has been maintained confirms in the least suspicious mind the conviction that it was entered into solely to aid the schemes of the government of Bolivia, a perpetual conspirator of the treaty of 1866. In 1873, neither Peru nor Bolivia was threatened by the remotest danger of territorial dismemberment; and much less could it be foreseen that Chile cherished such idea, seeing that it had granted to Bolivia whatever that republic demanded in the convention of 1866- applauded by the Bolivian people as a splendid manifestation of Chilean generosity……….

……….If the treaty meant a general guarantee against any advance of a foreign power, why was the cooperation of Chile not sought, which has given more than one example of being the first to contribute, with its men and its wealth, towards the maintenance of the sovereignty of nations of a common origin?..............

...........The treaty of 1873 owed its origin –hidden as a shameful act – to the measures adopted by Peru at that epoch, to justify one of the most audacious and cruel spoliation witnessed by countries submitted to a regime of common respect toward the industry of all nations.

Peru desired to monopolize and appropriate the nitrate works; and in order to sustain its daily diminishing credit………

Manifest of the Chilean government to the representatives of friendly powers with reference to the declaration of war against Peru.

Alejandro Fierro

Chilean Ministry of Foreign affairs, Santiago April 12, 1879

http://books.google.com/books?id=MC8WAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA173&dq=secret+treaty+peru+bolivia&lr=&ei=x7hfSuGSHZWOyATs44jNCg

(starts on page 170)

Notwithstanding the fact that in 1873 Peru had induced Bolivia to sign a pact of alliance tacitly directed against Chile, the Peruvian government offered its mediation in the Bolivian-Chilean conflict, the origin of which was nothing more than Peru’s monopolistic nitrate policy, which had instigated Bolivia to disposes Chilean industries.

The mediation of Peru was accompanied by three suspicious circumstances: (1)

The denial on the part of the mediating minister of the existence of the secret treaty of which Chile had lately become aware; (2) Previous Peruvian demands compatible only with the pretensions of Bolivia; (3) Hurried war preparations of Peru, the Peruvian government meanwhile showing a desire to gain time.

These circumstances, with the fact that Bolivia did not manifest the slightest desire to facilitate an amicable adjustment, indicated to Chile that Peru was not working ‘bona fide’, but only with the intentin of strengthening the alliance.

http://books.google.com/books?id=4LYqAAAAYAAJ&pg=PP5&dq=The+New+York+times+-+Current+History+1922&ei=wchfSpfFBZjKzATf_eSVCw

(page 450)

The New York times - Current History (1922)

Likeminas (talk) 00:11, 17 July 2009 (UTC)


 * All of these sources further demonstrate that the Chileans viewed the Peru-Bolivia alliance as a menace. However, what Chile viewed is exactly what it is: Chile's POV. Chile's POV doesn't determine if an alliance is officially defensive or offensive. Why weren't Ecuador, Brazil, Colombia, Venezuela, Uruguay, and Paraguay also part of the alliance? (I exclude Argentina because they were in negotiations of joining at one point; but as I believe Gonzalo Bulnes points out, Argentineans weren't willing to create a defensive alliance and fight against Chile for the defense of Bolivian territory.). Here are the sources stating that the alliance was officially defensive (I have a New York Times one too, how weird):


 * New York Times: "The defensive treaty of 1873 between Peru and Bolivia" (First column).
 * History of the Latin-American nations By William Spence Robertson:
 * A history of Peru By Clements Robert Markham: "The Chileans used this purely defensive treaty, by which arbitration is provided for before there can be a casus foederis, as a pretext for war."
 * CHILE, PERU AND THE TREATY OF 1929: THE FINAL SETTLEMENT by Ronald Bruce St John: "Peru was honour bound under the terms of an 1873 treaty of defensive alliance to join the conflict on the side of Bolivia."--//&#91;*&#93;MarshalN20&#91;*&#93;\\ (talk) 21:24, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

And then these are from Chilean sources. Yes, even some Chileans agree that the Peru-Bolivia defensive alliance was officially defensive (Not just "titled" defensive):


 * Read in Republic of Chile. Foreign Ministry. Archive 1884: "Copia Tratado de Alianza Defensiva Perú-Bolivia (1873)"
 * Read in Chilean newspaper : "Perú (quien intervino producto de un tratado defensivo..."--//&#91;*&#93;MarshalN20&#91;*&#93;\\ (talk) 13:49, 17 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I will say this just for the sake of clarification:
 * The first source listed from the Chilean foreign ministry is just the title of a document. Which, may I add, is inaccessible. So technically it is just titled that way.


 * The second source is a story from a movie about the war of the pacific.
 * Thus it cannot be considered by any means a scholarly written paper about the historical facts of the war.


 * In any case, I don't see anyone disputing that the official title of the treaty was defensive. Whether the treaty was intended or perceived to be other than defensive seems to be the issue here.


 * Likeminas (talk) 16:43, 17 July 2009 (UTC)


 * The second Chilean source is not a story from a movie. It's essentially an interview to Charly Varas, a movie-maker who has studied about the War of the Pacific. His statements are not necessarily the strongest around, but you can't dismiss his opinion as nothing. Also, indeed nobody is disputing "the title" of the defensive alliance. What's being disputed is whether the alliance was officially defensive or offensive. Keysanger, and now apparently you Likeminas, do not want for the treaty to be mentioned as "Officially defensive."--//&#91;*&#93;MarshalN20&#91;*&#93;\\ (talk) 21:11, 17 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Please re-read my last paragraph.


 * Likeminas (talk) 22:19, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

I've read your last paragraph (your last sentence to be more correct). That's the issue I'm still discussing. The treaty/alliance was officially defensive throughout its existance. I think that by this point everyone agrees that Chile perceived the alliance and treaty as a menace. However, perceptions are not answers for the verifiable truth. For instance, here's a thought experiment:


 * A color blind man enters a blue room. All he sees is gray, because he cannot see the color blue.
 * The painters, who painted the room blue, say that the room is officially blue.
 * Non-color blind people who enter the blue room also agree that the room is blue.

In this story, it should be accepted that the color blind man sees the blue as gray. However, it should be noted that the room was officially blue. This is exactly the same thing going on with the Peru-Bolivia defensive alliance:


 * Chile sees the Peru-Bolivia defensive alliance as a menace. Chile sees it as offensive to it because it is currently having problems with Bolivia (who is part of the defensive treaty).
 * Peru and Bolivia, the "painters," say that the treaty is officially defensive.
 * Reliable sources demonstrate that people agree that the treaty/alliance was defensive.

The sources provided that claim the Peru-Bolivia alliance to be an offensive-defensive alliance are incorrect. If it is established that the Peru-Bolivia alliance is defensive, why is it correct for them to change the meaning of a document to their liking? Both the actions Peru took and the document itself are not offensive. The http://www.congreso.gob.pe/ntley/Imagenes/LeyesXIX/1866144.pdf Peru-Chile offensive-defensive alliance] stands as a point of comparisson. Not only is the Peru-Chile alliance "officially titled" offensive-defensive, but it is also officially used as an offensive-defensive alliance. Similarly, not only is the Peru-Bolivia alliance "officially titled" defensive, but it is also officially used as a defensive alliance.--//&#91;*&#93;MarshalN20&#91;*&#93;\\ (talk) 23:15, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Example of a real Offensive-Defensive Alliance

User:Arafael provided me with a real example of a true "Offensive-Defensive" Alliance: In 1866, Peru and Chile signed an offensive-defensive alliance.--//&#91;*&#93;MarshalN20&#91;*&#93;\\ (talk) 21:11, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

The Peru-Bolivia Defensive Alliance has nothing in common with a real "Offensive-Defensive" alliance. Which leads me once again to say: Chile saw the Peru-Bolivia alliance as a menace, but what they saw should not be taken as an "official" fact of the document. The official document of the Peru-Bolivia alliance certifies that the alliance was officially defensive. And, of course, that's not my original research; I have provided plenty of sources that also agree that the alliance was defensive. I'll go search for more if I have time.--//&#91;*&#93;MarshalN20&#91;*&#93;\\ (talk) 21:11, 17 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Marshal,
 * Chile is blind and Peru can see.
 * Hmm, is that your understanding of Wikipedia's neutrality imperative?


 * --Keysanger (talk) 00:19, 18 July 2009 (UTC)


 * No. Why do you always evade the point? Intead of replying to the discussion with an effective response, you twist my words around and take things off-topic.--//&#91;*&#93;MarshalN20&#91;*&#93;\\ (talk) 00:25, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Please, help me to follow you. You wrote:


 * ''A color blind man enters a blue room. All he sees is gray, because he cannot see the color blue.
 * ''The painters, who painted the room blue, say that the room is officially blue.
 * ''Non-color blind people who enter the blue room also agree that the room is blue.

Who is the blind man? ( ????? )

Who are the painters? (…Peru and Bolivia, the "painters,…")

Who are the Non-color blind people? (Reliable sources demonstrate that people agree …)

Please, help me and answer: Who is the blind man?

Do you think it is neutral to considerer Chile blind and Peru in health?

--Keysanger (talk) 00:48, 18 July 2009 (UTC)


 * You're still evading the point. Also, you're taking the example I've given and taking it too literally. I could also have said:


 * A person who is scared of mice goes into a room filled with guinea pigs and claims them to be mice.
 * The owners of the guinea pigs know that they are not mice, so they tell the person who is scared of the guinea pigs that they are not mice.
 * People who are not scared of rodents enter the room and agree that these are not mice but that they are guinea pigs.


 * If I had used this example, would you be saying that Chile is scared of mice? In other words, you're making irrational statements and avoid to respond the problem.--//&#91;*&#93;MarshalN20&#91;*&#93;\\ (talk) 01:11, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Framing the issue
Since there doesn't seem to be agreement over the framing of the issue, I'd like you each to describe the issue, as you see it, as a short question that is 15 words or less. Please don't reply to or rebut other users framing of the question just yet. If you can't make the 15 word cutoff, that's OK, just keep it as short as possible. Gigs (talk) 13:25, 17 July 2009 (UTC)


 * User:Keysanger : Which of the three options of start issue implements better with Wikipedia's neutrality imperative? --Keysanger (talk) 20:57, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
 * User:Likeminas Several sources say that the secret treaty was titled as defensive, other sources say that it was intended or perceived to be other than defensive. Should we include both of these claims to maintain neutrality? Summarized by User:Gigs
 * User:Arafael
 * User:MarshalN20. Question: Was the Bolivia-Peru alliance officially a defensive alliance? (9 words)--//&#91;*&#93;MarshalN20&#91;*&#93;\\ (talk) 13:39, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

My position is rather simple; If there are reliable sources that the treaty was defensive, then that should be included in the article. On the other hand if there are realible sources stating that the treaty was iterpreted, seen or thought as other than defensive then that should be also included. By balancing POV's from all sides we'll reach a NPOV.

In other words, the issue (in my opinion) is mainly about sources and NPOV.

Likeminas (talk) 14:38, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
 * This section isn't really about positions, it's about the framing of the issue. Your position is an answer to a question, what's the question?  I encourage you to go back and try to formulate a short question that your position is one possible answer to.  I think it will help us work toward a consensus by helping to see what thought processes are leading people to the positions they are taking, in a short and simple form.  Gigs (talk) 18:35, 17 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Ok here's my question: Should all the information verifiable by reliable sources be included in the article in order to comply with the policy of neutrality?


 * Likeminas (talk) 18:53, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
 * That question could use some work. What is the position that you believe violates the neutrality policy?  Can you formulate a question that both implies your position, and the alternative position that you believe violates the policy?  If it takes a little more than 15 words, that's OK, but try to keep it short. Gigs (talk) 19:19, 17 July 2009 (UTC)


 * To answer your first question; If there is more than 1 POV regarding an issue, and the article presents only 1 POV then the neutrality policy is violated.

Should we include both of these claims? ===> 7 words ;)
 * Let me put foward another question, perhaps, this one will dissipate confusion;
 * Several sources support the thesis that the secret treaty was titled as defensive. On the other hand, there are other sources that support the thesis that the treaty was intended or perceived to be other than defensive.
 * Likeminas (talk) 20:16, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I have summarized this above, make sure you are OK with it. I guess we'll give you a pass on the 15 word thing. :) Gigs (talk) 20:38, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes I'm OK with it. Thanks for summarizing it.


 * Likeminas (talk) 22:12, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Sources issue

We first have to establish what we have reached, that became diffuse after my discussion with Marshal. I hope we agree that there are enough reliable sources for both sides. "The treaty was defensive" and "the treaty was offensive and defensive" and "the treaty was interpreted as offensive by the Chilean government" or similar. Likeminas, Marshal and Keysanger (me) agree that if such sources exists they have to be presented to the reader. I think there is concordance about. To let the sources unpublished would be an attempt against the Wikipedia.

Start issue

The second issue is about the start of the paragraph: I think that is the real issue now, and the question is: Which of the three options implement better with Wikipedia's neutrality imperative.
 * the pact was defensive
 * the pact was officially defensive
 * the pact was officially titled defensive

--Keysanger (talk) 20:57, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Gigs, do you understand Spanish text? --Keysanger (talk) 21:36, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
 * No. Keep in mind I'm not here to arbitrate facts, just to help you all reach consensus. Gigs (talk) 22:22, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

We are talking at cross-purposes. Gigs wants to obtain a binding question to answer. I propose to fix concordances and Likemina and Marshal discusse about defensive issues and every one sets different aims to be reached. It doesn't make sense. We need to schedule a discussion path.

--Keysanger (talk) 00:12, 18 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Let Gigs do his job at his own pace. You're not the mediator here, Keysanger.--//&#91;*&#93;MarshalN20&#91;*&#93;\\ (talk) 00:22, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to see what Arafel says before we go on, I will leave a message on their talk page that we are waiting on them. I know this process is a little slow, but we don't want one person to come back at the end and say that they completely disagree with the direction we've taken. Gigs (talk) 00:59, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
 * We may need to move on without Arafael. What do you all think? Gigs (talk) 13:01, 22 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree. He'll catch up with things once he returns from wherever he may be (I'll update him if he asks).--$%MarshalN20%$ (talk) 14:45, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Moving On
We have waited several days for Arafel to provide input, I think we should move on.

Does everyone agree with the following statement?


 * The pact was officially titled defensive

It doesn't seem to me that this fact is in dispute, ignoring the matter of the true nature of the alliance (we'll get to that next), right?


 * Right. The title of the of pact is defensive.--$%MarshalN20%$ (talk) 13:28, 23 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Right "the pact was officially titled defensive" --Keysanger (talk) 19:56, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Next up:


 * The pact was officially defensive.

I know this one is indeed in dispute, and is almost the entire dispute. I have a few comments/proposals:


 * Is declaring this one way or another of critical importance to the article?


 * Could you simply attribute who considers it officially defensive and who doesn't with explicit in text references?
 * For example, "Dr. Scholar says its officially defensive[1], while Historian Buff[2], and Bob Ross[3] dispute this claim, saying it was defensive in name only."

Please respond to each comment as a separate issue. Please try to keep it short and don't let it turn into a long debate here, so that we can keep it readable. Gigs (talk) 02:03, 24 July 2009 (UTC)


 * 1) Yes, it is of critical importance to the article to establish that the alliance between Peru and Bolivia was officially defensive. It's not a matter of common sense. First, in the text of the pact itself there is no specific nation mentioned, and the whole treaty is based on the general concept of protecting territory (not attacking or invading another country's territory): "The character of this treaty was general and had nothing special or concrete" (Page 107, Chap. XVI). Second, the alliance came into effect only after Chile declared war (Despite Bolivia's attempt to force Peru to activate the alliance when Chile invaded Antofagasta, which was prior to a declaration of war). Third, neither Peru or Bolivia ever went into the offensive. Fourth, Peru didn't want Argentina into the same alliance it had with Bolivia, because (as mentioned earlier) it was too broad. Peru didn't want a war with Brazil, and so they proposed to sign a different treaty with Argentina that would only be aimed at Chile. "Peru therefore tried to allay any possible Brazilian suspicions by specifically limiting to Chile the application of the proposed Treaty of Alliance" (Page 17).
 * 2) It seems to me that the matter is even simpler than that. Chile (for the most part), and most of its historians see the treaty as a menace and offensive to Chile. Peru and Bolivia (for the most part), and most of their historians see the treaty as merely defensive (not aimed at anyone). The third-party media is also split (one favor the Chilean POV, the other the Peru-Bolivia POV). I don't have any problem at all with mentioning the POV of Chile. The problem arises when the other users want to take the POV of Chile and impose it as the truth. Now, you may ask how they do this. The response is simple, for instance, User:Keysanger says that treaties are neither defensive or offensive, so he wants no mention of either. However, the problem is that if you take that part out, we're left with "Secret alliance" (Not "Secret defensive alliance"). A "secret alliance" points out the wrong message (a "normal alliance" which is always interpreted as offensive), and inadvertedly favors the Chilean POV. I repeat once more, I'm not against mentioning the Chilean POV of the treaty in the article, but the problem is that I don't agree with favoring it as the factual side of the story through inadverted (callint it neither defensive or offensive) or purposefilled measures (calling it offensive and defensive).--$%MarshalN20%$ (talk) 06:21, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

I read somewhere "Keysanger says that ...", "Keysanger means this ...". I want to state clearly and without any compromise that I represent my self and I do not allow any person to represent my opinion in this discussion. I warn the partner that such "representations" may be phantasies of the writers.

--Keysanger (talk) 18:05, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Keysanger's opinion:


 * Yes, it is of critical importance. For the Chilean government was the pact one of the causes of the war, as Mariano Paz Soldan (a Peruvian author) wrote in "Narracion historica de la guerra de Chile contra Peru y Bolivia", page 124-125 : El motivo en que mas inculca Chile, y es el tema de sus argumentos contra el Perú, es el tratado secreto de alianza de 1873. (translation: The by Chile most inculcated cause, und theme of his arguments against Peru, is the secret treaty of alliance of 1873). Paz Soldan deduced it from a "Manifest of the Chilean government to the representatives of friendly powers with reference to the declaration of war against Peru", to explain them the reasons of the war. Therefore it must be accepted that the treaty had, has and will have different interpretations, as any treaty, and no one of the interpretations should be "preferred" in Wikipedia in any way. It must precisely stated that the treaty was (so-called/called/titled/officially titled) defensive. The sentences "the defensive treaty" or "the officially defensive treaty" are intolerable.


 * There are 1 italian, 3 US-american and 5 Chilean reliable sources that confirm that the treaty can be and was interpreted as defensive and/or as offensive or as a menace for Chile:


 * 1) Donald E. Worcester and Wendell G. Schaeffer, "The Growth and Culture of Latin America", New York, Oxford University Press, 1956, 963 pages. Page 706, Relevant Text
 * the treaty is called (only) defensive-offensive, the authors don't go into details.
 * 2) Alfred Barnaby Thomas, Profesor of History, University of Alabama,"Latin America, A History", The Macmillian Company, New York, 1956, 800 pages. Page 450, Relevant Text
 * the treaty is called (only) defensive-offensive, the authors don't go into details.
 * 3) Charles de Varigny, La Guerra del Pacifico, page 18, here Relevant Text
 * the treaty is called defensive-offensive and go into details, that is why is considered offensive.
 * 4) Gonzalo Bulnes, "Chile and Peru, The causes of the War of 1879" page 57 and 58, Relevant Text
 * the treaty is called defensive-offensive and go into details, that is why is considered offensive.
 * 5) Diego Barros Arana, "Historia de la Guerra del Pacifico", parte 1, capitulo III pag. 31, Relevant Text
 * the treaty is called defensive-offensive and go into details, that is why is considered offensive. (not in the cited passage)
 * 6) Chilean Magazin "Que Pasa" here Relevant Text
 * the treaty is called defensive-offensive and go into details, that is why is considered offensive.


 * 7) Manifest of the Chilean government to the representatives of friendly powers with reference to the declaration of war against Peru. Alejandro Fierro, Chilean Ministry of Foreign affairs, Santiago April 12, 1879 here Relevant Text
 * the treaty is not called defensive or offensive but explain why it is considered a to justify one of the most audacious and cruel spoliation witnessed by countries submitted to a regime of common respect toward the industry of all nations and go into details.


 * 8) The New York Times - Current History (1922) here (page 450) Relevant Text
 * the NYT call the treaty a pact of alliance tacitly directed against Chile
 * 9) Tommaso Caivano, "Storia de lla guerra d'America fra Chilì, il Perù e la Bolivia", here page 252, Relevant Text
 * Tommasso Caivano (9) doesn't call the treaty offensive, only reproduces Diego Barros Arana's view and states that a treaty is subject of interpretations. That is what I want to state.

Wikipedia shouldn't decide through logical und/or semantical analisys whether the pact was defensive/offensive because such analisys lacks the political, economic and military circumstances and implications of the pact. Wikipedia have to use reliable sources.

--Keysanger (talk) 21:12, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Marshal, do you believe that Keysanger's selection of sources here is biased, or is it representative? Gigs (talk) 16:53, 27 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Well Gigs, thanks for asking. Yes, I think he has a made a rather biased source selection. Just as I mentioned in my prior post, Peruvian and Bolivian sources are often going to support the view of the pact being solely defensive while Chilean sources are going to be supporting the oppinion of the secret alliance treaty was aimed at Chile. Keysanger has brought up 5 Chilean sources, maybe expecting to make his source-list bigger, but those sources themselves are biased with Chilean POV; just as Bolivian and Peruvian sources would be tainted with Peruvian and Bolivian POV on the subject. Therefore, only the "1 italian, 3 US-american" sources can serve to attempt to "certify" his claim. Equally, I can provide 4 neutral sources stating that the alliance was merely defensive:
 * History of the Latin-American nations By William Spence Robertson:
 * New York Times: "The defensive treaty of 1873 between Peru and Bolivia" (First column).
 * A history of Peru By Clements Robert Markham: "The Chileans used this purely defensive treaty, by which arbitration is provided for before there can be a casus foederis, as a pretext for war."
 * CHILE, PERU AND THE TREATY OF 1929: THE FINAL SETTLEMENT by Ronald Bruce St John: "Peru was honour bound under the terms of an 1873 treaty of defensive alliance to join the conflict on the side of Bolivia."


 * The problem is that this "battle of the sources" can go on without end. As such, consensus is certainly needed in order to figure out how to find a solution to the matter. My consensus proposal, which I stated in my last post, was to:
 * Mention that Chile viewed the secret defensive alliance treaty between Peru and Bolivia as a menace (aimed at Chile).
 * Mention that despite Chilean worries, the secret defensive alliance treaty was only used defensively.
 * I think this is a good consensus that agrees with the sources and would make everybody happy. However, I have proposed this before also, but User:Keysanger did not want to admit that the alliance treaty was used defensively. As such, if Keysanger still challenges the statement, I would like to see an explanation as to how the secret defensive alliance treaty was not used defensively. I would also like to ask you, Gigs, if the consensus I propose is rational (But only if you deem it appropiate to respond).--$%MarshalN20%$ (talk) 18:27, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Your point number 2 is still making a declaration of fact, on what seems to be a contentious issue. Could it be reworded to be more like item 1, reflecting that there are different opinions depending on who you ask? Gigs (talk) 13:00, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I have already explained myself Gigs. Now the ball is on their park: What is their evidence (sourced) on how the alliance was used offensively? I already explained my points, and can provide references for them if need be, as to how Peru and Bolivia used their alliance defensively (not offensively). Can Keysanger or anybody else please explain how Peru and Bolivia used the alliance offensively?--$%MarshalN20%$ (talk) 15:05, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
 * This isn't a court, we aren't piling evidence for one thing or the other and then determining truth. If a statement is contentious among reliable sources, we need to just report who views it one way, and who views it the other way, and refrain from asserting one or the other is reality.  We can let the reader make up their own mind after presenting them the evidence in the most neutral way possible.  This is why your statement 2 is problematic in terms of finding a consensus here, since it asserts the truth of one of the contentious positions.  Gigs (talk) 18:52, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
 * You're not understanding my point Gigs. There is no proof (evidence) that the alliance was ever used offensively. Or, at least, I have seen no proof that demonstrates how the alliance was used offensively. Keysanger has provided no evidence whatsoever in regards as to how the alliance was used offensively. All of the sources he provides repeat the same thing: Chile viewed the alliance as offensive. However, none of them demonstrate any offensive usage of the treaty at any point. ON THE OTHER HAND, history shows that the alliance only came into effect after Chile declared war (There are plenty of reliable sources for that). You're supposed to be the mediator! You're essentially the judge, because judges are mediators. Yes, I know this is not a courtroom, but how can you attempt to "neutraly depict" something that has no explanation from the other side?--$%MarshalN20%$ (talk) 19:30, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

To point 1) I have to correct that not only the Chilean Government but different international reliable sources interpreted the treaty as defensive and/or offensive and as a menace for Chile.

To point 2) I think Marshal wants to judge the treaty with ethical values. He wants to say "the treaty was good and defensiv" but that is not possible in a encyclopaedia unless it is a issue without controversy and this is not the case.

Now Marshal wants references for other issue "the use of the treaty". We can discuss also about "the consecuences of the treaty" (good/bad) or "international impact of the treaty" (important/irrevelant), or "the importance of the treaty in the logistic of the war" (high/low) or …. That may be very interesting issues, but I fear I haven't enough time for.

We are discussing now whether the


 * treaty was defensive
 * treaty was officially defensive
 * treaty was officially titled defensive

Let's hang in there. I will not abuse of Gigs's friendliness and we (M and K) have a lot of work to do. Later we can look for further themes to discuss.

--Keysanger (talk) 19:58, 30 July 2009 (UTC)


 * And yet you keep evading the question. How was the treaty used offensively? Obviously, if it's a "Defensive and Offensive" treaty, there must be either mention of both things in the treaty itself or there is evidence that demonstrates how the treaty was used offensively. There is plenty of evidence showing the treaty was used solely as a defensive treaty. Where is the evidence of it being used offensively?--$%MarshalN20%$ (talk) 20:25, 30 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Which leads to 3 points that have been established:


 * 1) The treaty was officially titled defensive.
 * 2) The treaty was viewed by Chile as a menace (offensive to it).
 * 3) Professional opinion is split on whether the alliance was solely defensive or whether it was offensive and defensive.


 * And one that is still not being answered:


 * 1) The treaty, and the alliance, was only used defensively.


 * And I expect for all of these things to be resolved before any solution can be reached.--$%MarshalN20%$ (talk) 20:30, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi Marshal,

Do you agree that


 * 1) The treaty was officially titled defensive.
 * 2) The treaty was viewed by Chile as a menace (offensive to it).
 * 3) Professional opinion is split on whether the alliance was solely defensive or whether it was offensive to Chile and defensive?

(pay attention to "offensive to Chile", it is more precisely than to any country)

I, Keysanger, agree this 3 points and as far as I'm concerned, we have resolved the case if you agree.

About the new question, The treaty, and the alliance, was only used defensively. I don't know. I never heard such opinion. You are the first one but you live and learn. You know already my references. Let me know your refrences with author name, publisher, year of publishing, total number of pages of the book, page number of the passage and the relevant passage. Please don't resent me that bits and pieces, such work is usual for enciclopedic works.

I agree also: ''If a statement is contentious among reliable sources, we need to just report who views it one way, and who views it the other way, and refrain from asserting one or the other is reality. We can let the reader make up their own mind after presenting them the evidence in the most neutral way possible.''

--Keysanger (talk) 00:12, 31 July 2009 (UTC)


 * No. I agree to:


 * 1) The treaty was officially titled defensive.
 * 2) The treaty was viewed by Chile as a menace (offensive to it).
 * 3) Professional opinion is split on whether the alliance was solely defensive or whether it was offensive and defensive.
 * 4) The treaty was only used defensively.
 * These are the terms of my agreement.--$%MarshalN20%$ (talk) 00:33, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

I think that is incorrect but if Gigs wants to mediate also this issue, I don't mind. You have to deliver the references for your item (4). --Keysanger (talk) 01:45, 31 July 2009 (UTC)


 * According to page 89 of "Bolivia's case for the League of nations," The Treaty of Alliance of 1873 gave Peru the right to consider whether the casus foederis had been involved. The casus foederis of the alliance, presented by President Prado, was activated only after Chile declared war. The alliance was used only defensively.--$%MarshalN20%$ (talk) 02:07, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

You must write the text passage supporting your statement. --Keysanger (talk) 15:10, 1 August 2009 (UTC)


 * No, I do not. You must learn to read the information provided and then ask for the statement if you can't find it.
 * However, considering your lack of good knowledge of the English langage, here's the statement from the second source:
 * "The Republic of Peru decrees that the casus foederis mentioned in the Treaty of the 6th of February, 1873, with Bolivia has arrived; and, consequently, the time has come when the alliance must come into effect with all its stipulations." (Decreed on April 6, 18779. Chilean declaration of war: April 5, 1879)
 * Now, since Peru used the treaty defensively, how exactly was the treaty used offensively? OR, alternatively, where in the text of the actual treaty does it mention anything offensive? Unless something can be provided to certify the usage of the alliance as offensive, the statement "The treaty was only used defensively" is correct.--$%MarshalN20%$ (talk) 16:20, 1 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Also, I noticed that the source of "Tommaso Caivano" is used incorrectly. Caivano does not support the idea of an "Offensive-Defensive Alliance." He is only mentioning that a Chilean historian, who is already mentioned in Keysanger's list, says the alliance is "Offensive-Defensive Alliance." Therefore, his usage in order to certify that statement is completely incorrect.--$%MarshalN20%$ (talk) 16:26, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

"Tommaso Caivano" is used correctly. I repeat my statement about Caivano:

''Tommasso Caivano (9) doesn't call the treaty offensive, only reproduces Diego Barros Arana's view and states that a treaty is subject of interpretations. That is what I want to state.''

So you discovered nothing new but you overlooked again the last part of the sentence: ''and states that a treaty is subject of interpretations. That is what I want to state.''

Would you be so kind to let us read the relevant text of your first source now? --Keysanger (talk) 17:14, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Please keep it civil, comments like "learn to read" are unproductive. Unfortunately I will be going on vacation the next 8 days or so, and will not be able to take an active role in the mediation during this time. I will catch up when I get back.  Gigs (talk) 19:22, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Back
Hello again, I am back. Has there been any discussion elsewhere of this issue during my absence, or are we still at the same place? Gigs (talk) 11:35, 13 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't think so. I'm really tired of this discussion. Could you please summarize what has been agreed and still needs to be discussed by this point? Thus far I feel that it's been me proposing consensus, while Keysanger has been opposing my proposals. On the other hand, I haven't seen him propose much of a consensus.--$%MarshalN20%$ (talk) 18:52, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

There hasn't been any direct contribution of this issue during your absence. Marshal was unable to deliver any reliable sources for his 4. sentence "The treaty was only used defensively". The text "The Republic of Peru decrees that the casus foederis mentioned in the Treaty of the 6th of February, 1873, with Bolivia has arrived; and, consequently, the time has come when the alliance must come into effect with all its stipulations."" in no way supports the biased sentence.

So, as far as I'm concerned, we agree that :
 * 1) The treaty was officially titled defensive.
 * 2) The treaty was viewed by Chile as a menace (offensive to it).
 * 3) Professional opinion is split on whether the alliance was solely defensive or whether it was offensive to Chile and defensive

--Keysanger (talk) 11:03, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

You're lying on what has been thus far agreed. That's just shameful. The treaty was not "offensive to Chile." That's your personal bias and that of Chilean historians. That's what has been agreed. If you don't want the 4th point, fine, I won't argue it as (like I said above) I'm tired of this discussion. However, don't try to sneak in personal nationalist bias into what has already been agreed.--$%MarshalN20%$ (talk) 15:54, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) The treaty was officially titled defensive.
 * 2) The treaty was viewed by Chile as a menace (offensive to it).
 * 3) Professional opinion is split on whether the alliance was solely defensive or whether it was offensive and defensive.
 * Well, it looks like you two are pretty close to an agreement. Maybe one final push and this can be resolved? Gigs (talk) 01:24, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

As you like it:
 * 1) The treaty was officially titled defensive.
 * 2) The treaty was viewed by Chile as a menace (offensive to it).
 * 3) Professional opinion is split on whether the alliance was solely defensive or whether it was offensive and defensive.

So, I think the issue is now cleared.

--Keysanger (talk) 11:43, 17 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Sounds good to me. Thank you Gigs.--$%MarshalN20%$ (talk) 14:15, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Excellent, thank you all for working through this. Gigs (talk) 14:52, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you Gigs, --Keysanger (talk) 10:37, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Comment on new section
I have re-named the newly created section. I don’t agree with the World perspectives and much less with the forked section Argentina.

Argentina -as it is well documented- played a very prominent role priorior, during and after the war. It was not a mere World viewer, but an active negotiator and possible member of the secret Bolivia-Peru alliance. It’s also well known that Argentina had an ongoing dispute with Chile for territories in Patagonia.

Here’s how the archive of the Argentine foreign ministry puts it:

Sin embargo, a pesar de su neutralidad en la guerra del Pacífico, las autoridades argentinas no dejaron de jugar un rol importante en el delicado equilibrio de fuerzas del Cono Sur, y especialmente relevante en relación a las naciones "menores" en términos de poder en la subregión. Así, la cancillería argentina emprendió una serie de acciones diplomáticas apuntadas a evitar que Chile pudiera obtener grandes ganancias, sobre todo territoriales, a costa de los países vencidos, Perú y Bolivia. En la base de la actitud argentina estaba el temor a que, luego de la victoria sobre Perú y Bolivia, Chile buscara expandirse sobre territorio argentino. La percepción predominante en los hombres del gobierno argentino, durante las décadas de 1870 y 1880, respecto de su situación de inferioridad de fuerzas militares en comparación con las de Chile había contribuido a exacerbar dicho temor.

However, despite its neutrality in the Pacific war, the Argentine authorities did not fail to play an important role in the delicate balance of forces in the Southern Cone, and particularly relevant in relation to the "minor" nations in terms of power in the sub-region. Thus, the Argentine Foreign Ministry launched a series of diplomatic actions aimed at preventing that Chile could gain big profits, especially land, at the expense of the defeated countries, Peru and Bolivia.

On the basis of that attitude Argentina was under the fear that after the victory over Peru and Bolivia, Chile could seek to expand on Argentine territory. The prevailing perception among men in the Argentine government during the 1870s and 1880s, for their inferior status of military forces in comparison with those of Chile helped to exacerbate the fear.

I believe the section called Role of Argentina in the war, Argentina's stance or something of that kind is more appropriate.

I, however, will leave the other sections under characteristics of the war.

Likeminas (talk) 01:05, 18 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Consensus was reached by both me and Keysanger in creating this new section and including Argentina into it. This is not a content fork as no new articles have been created. Argentina did not have much of a role in the "crisis" prior to the War of the Pacific. I believe to have read somewhere that Chile contacted Brazil and planned to create some sort of alliance, but things also did not work out. According to your logic, Brazil should also have a section in the "crisis." You don't WP:Own the article to be moving around things at your own will without priorly discussing things.--//&#91;*&#93;MarshalN20&#91;*&#93;\\ (talk) 01:22, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Consensus is not reached by only two contributors. Even it there was consesus, I dispute that consensus.


 * Argentina surely had much of a role priorior to the war. Approval by the Argentine Chamber of Deputies under a secret session in regards to the entry of that country into the Bolivia-Peru alliance is not merely a world perspective, but rather direct involvement in the war.


 * If you can find any reliable source that says anything about negotiations between Chile and Brazil to form an alliance or anything of that sort, by all means feel free to post it.


 * BTW, I never thought I owned the article, but I believe I improved and expanded the section.


 * Likeminas (talk) 01:41, 18 July 2009 (UTC)


 * You moved around the sections to your liking. You even edited your message here on the talk page in order to justify your moves, for your original message only stated that you would move the Argentinean section (not the World Perspective section). You should be more careful when using WP:BOLD on articles where there are several discussions regarding different controversial things.--//&#91;*&#93;MarshalN20&#91;*&#93;\\ (talk) 13:51, 18 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Do I need to ask you for permission to move things around?
 * I can edit my own edits here on the talk page as many times as I please, just like you do it.
 * By the way, refrain from adding selective tags on my edits. The verification you need was posted twice. Here and on the article.
 * I will ask, and by now you should know this better, that as a courtesy for your fellow contributors, you give a brief edit summary of the changes you make.
 * For your comprehension and cooperation. Thanks.
 * Likeminas (talk) 13:35, 20 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Don't talk about courtesy if you're trying to defend WP:BOLD, which goes completely against any kind of courtesy. "refrain from adding selective tags on [b]my[/b] edits": clear example of WP:Own. I've given edit summaries for edits that required such summaries; I'm not going to do it for all of them as it is not required by Wikipedia.--//&#91;*&#93;MarshalN20&#91;*&#93;\\ (talk) 14:54, 20 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Yeah sure. I own the article. The revision history has mostly my user name on it.


 * Likeminas (talk) 15:03, 20 July 2009 (UTC)


 * You're evading the point. You don't "own" the information you provide for the article. It's not "yours" by the time you add it in.--//&#91;*&#93;MarshalN20&#91;*&#93;\\ (talk) 15:29, 20 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Some fiendly policy reminder for Marshall:


 * "Always fill in the summary field. This is considered an important guideline. Even a short summary is better than no summary. An edit summary is even more important if you delete any text; otherwise, people may question your motives for the edit. Also, mentioning one change but not another one can be misleading to someone who finds the other one more important; add 'and misc.' to cover the other change(s)."


 * "Accurate summaries help people decide whether it is worthwhile for them to check a change. We've found that summaries often pique the interest of contributors with expertise in the area. This may not be as necessary for 'minor changes', but 'fixed spelling' would be nice even then."


 * WP:FILLINEDITSUMMARY
 * Likeminas (talk) 15:23, 20 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I haven't deleted anything in the article. I give enough information on edit summaries when I feel that they are required/important; taking also into account I'm not the only one who doesn't provide as much attention to the edit summaries.--//&#91;*&#93;MarshalN20&#91;*&#93;\\ (talk) 15:29, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Lead
There apparently is, yet again, another problem. This time it comes from the lead. This is what I have recently written for the lead:

The War of the Pacific, occurring from 1879-1883, was a conflict between Chile and the joint forces of Bolivia and Peru. Also known as the "Saltpeter War," the war arose from disputes over the control of territory that contained substantial mineral-rich deposits. After a taxation controversy in a territory disputed by Chile and Bolivia, the crisis worsened following the Chilean invasion of Bolivian territory and the discovery of a secret defensive alliance between Bolivia and Peru. The war officially began on 1879, after the Chilean declaration of war and the activation of the casus foederis of the defensive treaty between Peru and Bolivia. The conclusion of the conflict ultimately led to the Chilean annexation of the Peruvian Tarapaca department and Arica province, as well as the Bolivian department of Litoral, leaving Bolivia as a landlocked country.

However, Keysanger reverted this and instead wrote this for the lead:

The War of the Pacific, occurring from 1879-1883, was a conflict between Chile and the joint forces of Bolivia and Peru. Also known as the "Saltpeter War", the war arose from disputes over the control of territory that contained substantial mineral-rich deposits. The crisis worsened after a taxation controversy in a territory disputed by Bolivia and Chile, Chile invaded Bolivian territory and discovered the existance of a secret alliance between Bolivia and Peru. The war officially began on 1879, after the Bolivian declaration of war and the activation of the casus foederis of the defensive treaty between Peru and Bolivia. The conclusion of the conflict ultimately led to the Peruvian and Bolivian cession of the Peruvian Tarapaca department and Arica province, as well as the Bolivian department of Litoral, leaving Bolivia as a landlocked country.

Instead of actually improving the lead, he creates a horrible grammatic error and deletes/adds things based on his POV. Once again, how can WP:GF be assumed after such edits?--//&#91;*&#93;MarshalN20&#91;*&#93;\\ (talk) 13:47, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Here are some points of comparisson:
 * 1) How is changing the original sentence an improvement?
 * Original: After a taxation controversy in a territory disputed by Chile and Bolivia, the crisis worsened following the Chilean invasion of Bolivian territory and the discovery of a secret defensive alliance between Bolivia and Peru.
 * Keysanger: The crisis worsened after a taxation controversy in a territory disputed by Bolivia and Chile, Chile invaded Bolivian territory and discovered the existance of a secret alliance between Bolivia and Peru.
 * 1) Note how Keysanger deletes the part of "defensive" in order to push his POV.
 * 2) He changed the part dealing with the declaration of war; Chile was the first country to officialy declare war, that has been discussed in the past. The "Crisis" section explains the matter with more detail.
 * Original: The war officially began on 1879, after the Chilean declaration of war
 * Keysanger: The war officially began on 1879, after the Bolivian declaration of war...--14:05, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Picture of Military Commanders
I'm thinking about creating a picture of the most "well known" or outstanding commanders of the War of the Pacific. I'd be using Wikipedia's picture of them, since most of their pictures here are past their copyright status (thus leaving them free for public use). However, I'd like to hear some opinions. Should I make a large combination of all the military commanders, or split them up among the nations (One for Chile, one for Peru, and one for Bolivia, and maybe one for the foreigners)? Any other opinions would be good.--//&#91;*&#93;MarshalN20&#91;*&#93;\\ (talk) 20:38, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Unreliable sources that need to be checked and removed
Marshall recently created a highly POV section, using "sources" from a ultra nationalistic website called Peru Heroico or "Heroic Peru" They should be removed immediately as per WP:RS and WP:NPOV

http://peruheroico.com/inicio/plinio-esquinarila-bellido/86-plinio-esquinarila-bellido/175-inglaterra-uso-a-chile-contra-el-peru.html

Likeminas (talk) 14:04, 20 July 2009 (UTC)


 * For those interested in this discussion, Marshall asked on the RSN whether this "source" can be considered reliable.
 * In my opinion this "source" not only is unreliable, but also not neutral.
 * In any case, if we're going to be using ultra nationalistic websites, there's tons of material regarding the war of the pacific on http://www.soberaniachile.cl/
 * Do we really want add some info from nationalistic websites while compromising the quality of the article?
 * To me the answer is a no-brainer.
 * Likeminas (talk) 18:11, 20 July 2009 (UTC)


 * You're the one claiming the "Peru Heroico" website to be "ultranationalistic." The information being used from that website is backed up by a series of other sources, as provided in the Relible Sources page. You're the one threatening to use something that even you call "nationalistic." Why do you not assume //&#91;*&#93;MarshalN20&#91;*&#93;\\ (talk) 18:33, 20 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I have sent the information to the RSN discussion page, so I'll abide to whatever comes out of it (Negative or positive); if you can't, then that's you who is breaking wiki policy and not me. Especially if you begin to use what even you call nationalistic propaganda.--//&#91;*&#93;MarshalN20&#91;*&#93;\\ (talk) 18:33, 20 July 2009 (UTC)


 * As per your understanding of reliability, Heroic Peru should be as reliable as SoberaniaChile.cl


 * Also, when you update the links (if you do) then, I would like to check them against the same statements you included from Peru Heroico. Hopefully they're fully backed as you claim them to be.
 * I'm also tagging this one
 * Another ultranationalistic website that goes as far as calling it La guerra inglesa or the "English war"
 * Likeminas (talk) 18:59, 20 July 2009 (UTC)


 * You keep making mention of it being "ultranationalistic," while several other sources also agree that the British involvement in the war was too great to ignore.--//&#91;*&#93;MarshalN20&#91;*&#93;\\ (talk) 21:58, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Warning to the reader: POV-tag
We have unsolved issues :


 * first declaration of war Chile/Bolivia
 * color of the boundary in map red/black
 * reliable sources (peruheroico, nuestroperu)
 * defensive/offensive was/was called
 * sources for statements in occupation of Lima
 * Role of Argentina

The present version of article reflects mainly Marshals view of the facts. Attempts to improve the article has been reverted by Marshal. I have to warn the reader about a biased description of the facts.

--Keysanger (talk) 23:01, 20 July 2009 (UTC)


 * What are the "attempts to improve" that you speak of?--//&#91;*&#93;MarshalN20&#91;*&#93;\\ (talk) 23:04, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Clearly, Marshall is tweaking the article and pushing his POV now. What's more aggravating, is that he's doing so with highly questionable websites such as www.peruheroico.com and even adding Chilean racism into it.

Likeminas (talk) 23:28, 20 July 2009 (UTC)


 * How am I tweaking the article? Simply provide an explanation. Also, racism in Chile is a reality, and part of the War of the Pacific.--//&#91;*&#93;MarshalN20&#91;*&#93;\\ (talk) 23:32, 20 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Tweaking as in making major changes -not precisily in good faith- that make look Chile as the racist, aggresive tool of Britain.


 * But it's alright. as long as you make it with reliable sources, I'm fine with it.


 * By the way, if you're going to include citations to google books, please include the page number. We really need that info to check for accuracy.


 * Likeminas (talk) 23:48, 20 July 2009 (UTC)


 * You're going to tell me that Chile isn't racist? Also, it's not me that says Chile was used as a tool. James G. Blaine said it. I'll use the page number on the books if I remember to include it. I'm doing all edits on WP:GF, and if you don't believe that then you're breaking WP:GF.--//&#91;*&#93;MarshalN20&#91;*&#93;\\ (talk) 23:58, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
 * You know very well, you've made the latest edits not with good faith in mind. But we'll to follow WP:GF we'll assume or at least pretend you aren't.


 * by the the way, adding the page number is not optional.


 * Likeminas (talk) 00:05, 21 July 2009 (UTC)


 * How is preventing Wikipedia from getting blamed from plagiarism not WP:GF? You have problems buddy. I'm simply adding information backed by sources, but for some reason you find them to be an attack against Chile. It's really sad.--//&#91;*&#93;MarshalN20&#91;*&#93;\\ (talk) 00:26, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
 * First off, I'm not your buddy. Simply adding information backed by sources? From utral nationalistic sources from Peru Heroico? That's laughabable and pitifull to say the least.


 * Likeminas (talk) 00:37, 21 July 2009 (UTC)


 * You should take a time out, breath in deeply, count to three, and then think about what you're saying. Why are you getting so aggressive? I already stated, if the Reliable Sources discussion turns out to favor your POV, I will not contest it. Why are you getting so worked up about it?--00:52, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Marshal leads almost always every objective discussion into a personal issue. He ignores the arguments of the other people and starts dubious sentences about the opponent:


 * ''You seem to be a little agitated
 * ''Why are you getting so aggressive?
 * ''You should take a time out, breath in deeply, count to three
 * ''You're going to tell me that Chile isn't racist?

mainly if he cann't find a answer to the problems of his argumentation. To my contribution he answered:


 * ''*A person who is scared of mice goes into a room filled with guinea pigs and claims them to be mice.
 * ''*The owners of the guinea pigs know that they are not mice, so they tell the person who is scared of the guinea pigs that they are not mice.
 * ''*People who are not scared of rodents enter the room and agree that these are not mice but that they are guinea pigs.
 * ''If I had used this example, would you be saying that Chile is scared of mice? In other words, you're making irrational statements and avoid to respond the problem
 * ''If I had used this example, would you be saying that Chile is scared of mice? In other words, you're making irrational statements and avoid to respond the problem

That has nothing to do with the problem of the neutrality. What a sense makes the sentence "Chile is scared of mice"?.

Also about the secret clausel of the alliance treaty he did this statement, not in the right ballpark, I asked him again and he tried to correct but he missed by a mile. I asked him to finish the discussion and to reach an agreement about the issue and a second time in  but he never answered.

That are only two flowers in Marshal's garden. He led the way with non-Neutrality statements (Chile=blind, Peru=healthy), dubious sources (peruheroico.com) and individual-related expressions (You seem to be a little agitated) or to deviate the discussion to themes beside the point (You're going to tell me that Chile isn't racist?).

On this way we will never improve the article. We have to go on and get a consensus in this article, based on the 5 pillars of wikipedia.

I propose to lock the article page until we get an agreement. Or at least we should agree not to makes changes that could be contested.

We will discusse the issues one after the other.

The POV-tag remain in.

--Keysanger (talk) 13:31, 21 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Keysanger, I am truly surprised by the little carnival you have going on in your head. One of the first things to clear up is that Likeminas, and neither you, are my "opponents." We're all wikipedians here, and I'm generally attempting to assume WP:GF with your edits (Specially yours, for the least Likeminas has more sincere edits); if you two were my "opponents" then this whole community would begin to crumble. In fact, using some reverse psychology, why do you see me as your "opponent" Keysanger? Is it because you have a desire to start some kind of war? Wise words of Keysanger: "I promise you, you will ignite the war again if you try to coerce my freedom to cooperate with Wikipedia."


 * Also, I find it quite funny how you keep attempting to take my examples (The painter and, later, the mice) literally. Do you take the phrase, "Speak softly and carry a big stick," in such a literal way? I can imagine you asking: "Why does the United States carry a stick? Does that mean the Americans are cavemen? Why is Roosevelt a giant? Was Roosevelt a tall man? Did he like toy ships? Why is he pulling ships with his hand? Why does he speak softly? Does he have a sore throat?"


 * As you can see with the example, there is a difference between taking things too literally and taking them as the examples they truly represent. In the case of Keysanger, he (I assume WP:GF) seems to take, by mistake, things too literally and then expects me to answer his silly questions.


 * Also, on the matter regarding Argentina, I must have skipped over that. It has been quite a busy time. Additionally, I took out the peruheroico.com sources. After all of the whining and threats done I opted it was a better idea to simply remove the source. Likeminas helped by suggesting me to look at Google books.


 * I disagree with locking the article. It would practically mean everything would get stuck as it is with very minor changes to be made. That would be a sad end for the article.--//&#91;*&#93;MarshalN20&#91;*&#93;\\ (talk) 15:43, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Issues
Before this escalates into something bigger, let's cool down for a moment. I personally have no interest in getting personal with anyone here. I think we should just stick to the issues and avoid any confrontation at a personal level. I hope we can all agree, that in a more cordial environment it is way more enjoyable and efficient to contribute to the betterment of the article.

At the same time I'd like to stress the need for specific information regarding sources.


 * Sources for off and online books need to include the page number of the relevant information: This is crucial because it serves two purposes; for one it is makes the job of verifying information a lot easier. The book ,for example, Influencia Britanica en el Salitre, with more than 670 pages is quite a long read to check for accuracy. Noting a page number is also considered good academic etiquette.


 * There’s a lot of statement of opinion on several sections that might need re-writing to avoid weasel wording. I think it is also neccesary to identify the author of the statement as the holder of the opinion to avoid presenting that information as facts.

There might me more issues that need to be addressed, so please feel free to add them. And again, Let’s discuss content, not the editor.

Likeminas (talk) 15:05, 21 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree with Likeminas. Everybody should take a second to cool down and think before they write. Unlike Keysanger seems to claim, we're not "opponents" here, we'res imply Wikipedians attempting to improve a Wikipedia article.--//&#91;*&#93;MarshalN20&#91;*&#93;\\ (talk) 15:48, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

WP:Avoid weasel words

"Some people say..." "Some argue..." "Contrary to many..." "Research has shown..." "...is claimed to be..." "...is thought to be..." "It is believed that..." "It is rumored that..." "Some feel that..." "Critics/experts say that..." "It is claimed..." "It has been reported that..." "It is generally considered that..." Anthropomorphisms like "Science says ..." or "Medicine believes ..."

That's a list of some of the weasel words.--//&#91;*&#93;MarshalN20&#91;*&#93;\\ (talk) 15:48, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Deletion of sourced material
Marshal, I don't know if you realize it but you deleted this sourced sentence, not once but twice,. I'm sure you're aware that deletion of sourced material without justification amounts to vandalism. I will, once again, restore the sentence. Likeminas (talk) 18:46, 21 July 2009 (UTC)


 * What does the return of books have to do with the War of the Pacific? I deleted it on purpose the first time I was updating the section; not sure how it got deleted the second time (you must have added it while I was still updating the section). Also, the reference serves for both that sentence and the prior one.--//&#91;*&#93;MarshalN20&#91;*&#93;\\ (talk) 18:52, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
 * It has a lot to do if the previous sentence talks about the books being looted.
 * And no. The BBC report talks only about books, nothing about capital stock.
 * Likeminas (talk)


 * I still don't think it does. This is supposed to be a section dealing with the history of the campaign, not about the current things Chile has done to fix some of its errors.--$%MarshalN20%$ (talk) 20:49, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The section talks about some books, and the sentence that follows it discusses what happened to those books.


 * In any case, If we don't put it there, then under Aftermath: Chile could also fit well.
 * And please let's avoid value judgements. not really interested.


 * Likeminas (talk) 23:42, 21 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Sounds like a better idea. Do you want to place it there, or should I (Regularly I wouldn't and shouldn't ask, but seeing as how sensitive the matter seems to be to you, then I find it best to ask)?--$%MarshalN20%$ (talk) 00:20, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
 * It's not that it is sensitive to me. As you can see, this discussion can get somewhat heated. Value judgtments don't help improving the article. In fact, in my experience, I see that they lead to unnecessary and escalated disputes instead.


 * I know it's hard sometimes not to give one's opinion, but being that Wikipedia is not a forum they're not really relevant here.


 * In any case, you or I can do the edit. No biggie...


 * Regarding this link http://books.google.com/books?id=QzUPAAAAYAAJ&sitesec=reviews&source=gbs_navlinks_s the one I tagged as broken, I get this on the title :span id="btAsinTitle"La emigración europea a la América Latina By Asociación de historiadores latinoamericanistas europeos, Bonn) Reunión de Historiadores Latinoamericanistas 


 * anyone else getting the same? I see the title, but no eBook.


 * Likeminas (talk) 00:51, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

I get a book with a seldom title: span id="btAsinTitle"La emigración europea a la América Latina. There is no access to the text of the book. --Keysanger (talk) 20:00, 23 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Have any of you attempted to use the search engine within the book?--$%MarshalN20%$ (talk) 20:58, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

That source -I'm afraid- was used in a rather deceptive manner. How can the statement, for which that source was used, be corroborated without accessing the relevant book page(s)?

Adding fraudulent sources is a worrying precedent, which I must say, does not do a lot in the realm of good faith.

Likeminas (talk) 15:47, 28 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm afraid to say that you're incorrect. If you want to corroborate the information, you will have to buy the book. When books are used, there's no other option (Unless the book is on an internet format to be viewed). I have worked in Wikipedia articles that use book sources, and you can't access those books from the internet (Hence, you have to have the actual book copy to check the reference being made). Deletion of 34,000 bytes of sourced material (from books) is completely against Wikipedia rules.--$%MarshalN20%$ (talk) 16:59, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

That's interesting because you previously claimed it “opened perfectly” and that it “took only a few seconds” but when other users including myself tried to open it we got nothing but this span id="btAsinTitle"La emigración europea a la América Latina. Then you said you were “working” on fixing the link and when Keysanger got the same results as me, you advised us to “to use the search engine within the book” which implies that the book was accessible (at least by you).

Now you claim it is “library book”?

Then why then not say that from the very beginning?

Why fix a link that cannot be fixed?

And more intriguingly how are we supposed to use the search engine within a library book?

Likeminas (talk) 18:39, 28 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Of course it opens perfectly. The first thing you said was that it was a dead link. However, both you and Keysanger opened the link (It's not dead). Nonetheless, both of you mentioned the awkward title, which is why I said I would try to fix it. I also recommended the usage of the search function within the book; it has a limited view of the content (You have to buy it to see the whole content). The information I saw, when I used the search function, found me the information I referenced for the article. Yet, since you still couldn't open it, I recommended the usage of a library book. You're obviously not assuming WP:GF and are taking a bit of a paranoia regarding my edits.--$%MarshalN20%$ (talk) 20:43, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

"Update" of Naval campaing is Peruvian POV
Peruvian POV Although in a condition of numerical inferiority, Miguel Grau, the commander of the Huáscar, managed to hold-off all of the Chilean navy for six months. Among the most outstanding actions of these "Excursions of the Huáscar" are the Battle of Antofagasta (May 26, 1879) and the Second Battle Antofagasta (August 28, 1879).

Not only does Grau capture the ship, but also captures the cavalry regiment Carabineros de Yungay which was on board.

besides being WP:POVthis edit deletes sourced, relevant information it breaks wikilinks, and blantly lacks any sources

This is not an improvement, and I'm reverting it to the previous version.

PS:Actually I won't be able to revert it because of times issues now, but that section needs to be worked out. Here's a good source for the naval campaign: http://books.google.com/books?id=mswNUZ4w0iwC&pg=PA132&dq=naval+war+chile+peru&ei=KWlmSsLNJJ6SygS80-mmBA starting on page 128 Likeminas (talk) 01:19, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Wow. How is it "Peruvian POV"? the Naval campaign section is much better than the broken-up strips of information that were not a summary of the naval conflict.--$%MarshalN20%$ (talk) 01:25, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Using qualifiers such as the most oustanding and not only did he do this is POV.


 * In any case it's not much better if it's not replaced with sourced content.


 * PI just tagged the article. I'll be back soon.


 * Likeminas (talk) 01:30, 22 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, it's probably called "most outstanding" because that's the most outstanding thing that the Huascar did (the battles of Antofagasta). What else could one ship do? In reference to the sourced content, that's what I'm currently looking for. I was trying to resolve the problem with the alleged "dead link," but this other problem seems to be of more importance. I can't be everywhere at once, so you'll have to excuse the unattention I'll be giving the "dead link" thing you mention.--$%MarshalN20%$ (talk) 01:33, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

the sentence
 * The Battle of Angamos marks the end of the naval campaign of the War of the Pacific.[citation needed]

is contradictory with the next sentences:


 * However, the Peruvian navy would go on to achieve victories at the Naval Battle of Arica (February 27, 1880) and the Second Naval Battle of Arica (March 17, 1880), before finally being completely defeated during the Blockade of Callao, where the Peruvian fleet was set on fire and the coastal defenses of Callao were destroyed or taken to Chile.[citation needed]

There are of course other battles and uses of the navies after the battle of angamos. I request to delete or change first sentence (The Battle of Angamos marks the end …)

--Keysanger (talk) 11:36, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Deleted --Keysanger (talk) 13:45, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Again: references to "Great Britain"
The sentence During the War of the Pacific, Chile was backed morally and financially by the British Empire. is backed by two references:


 * 1) http://www.hemisphericinstitute.org/eng/publications/emisferica/5.2/52_images/pdf/beckman_print.pdf
 * 2) http://www.granvalparaiso.cl/v2/2009/03/21/los-ingleses-de-america/

Looking the second of them we can state that, apart from that the column is somthing like a blog without any academic label, the only sentence regarding some kind of backing is En ambos episodios [Falkland war, War of the Pacific] como todos sabemos, los gobernantes chilenos han estado en una espuria complicidad con los británicos..

There is nothing to sustain the backed morally and financially.


 * Per reliable sourcing, the second link has been taken out. The Hemispheric Institute one seems to be quite clear.--$%MarshalN20%$ (talk) 15:27, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

dubious tag for During the Chilean invasion ... John Thomas North
The given reference ( http://www.elcorreo.eu.org/esp/article.php3?id_article=3426 ) is more or less a blog site and have to replaced by a reliable source, relativized or deleted.

--Keysanger (talk) 14:40, 22 July 2009 (UTC)


 * It's not a "blog site." Per its ending ".org", it's an organization. The source is reliable and should not be deleted. I'll look for a stronger source to back it up.--$%MarshalN20%$ (talk) 15:29, 22 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I also dispute that source as it shows no bibliography, the same thing that so vehemently was requested from Gonzalo Bulnes' book.
 * By the way, domains are up for sale rather cheaply these days, including those ending in .org
 * So endings are indication of nothing, much less of reliability.
 * Likeminas (talk) 15:37, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Lackawamma Conference
The lackawamma conference doesn't belong to the Land Campaign. I reinserted it into the main article.

--Keysanger (talk) 14:40, 22 July 2009 (UTC)


 * The Lackawama is part of the land campaign as one of the peace events during the war. If you want to include information on it, please do so by adding an elaborate sentence (or two) regarding the matter within the Land Campaign summary.--$%MarshalN20%$ (talk) 06:19, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

The Lackawamma Conference is part of the Land Campaign?.

Which is the name of the battle? Lackawamma battle?

The Conference belongs absolutly to the main article.

--Keysanger (talk) 10:27, 23 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Can you explain why the Lackawama is so "important"?--$%MarshalN20%$ (talk) 13:48, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Why do you put the LC in the Land Campaign? Do you see a batle there? --Keysanger (talk) 20:06, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

It's part of the land campaign. We're not making a list of battles, we're doing a summary of the most important events of the Land Campaign. The Lackawama Conference is not important enough to hold its own section: The negotiations were a failure (It didn't resolve the war, therefore it's not important for a section of its own). However, it is important in the sense of it being "a part of" the wide view of the events. In the summary given to it, a paragraph on its own, all the important points of the conference are covered.--$%MarshalN20%$ (talk) 20:51, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Summarizing (Some people need to learn...)
Once the article gets into a position where it exceeds the capacity of 82 KB, it becomes completely obvious that a summary of the events is necessary in certain sections of the article. Please read Article size. I know that some of you would like to include even the name of the grandmothers of the participants in the war, but sadly, certain specific things need to slowly be put into a separate article.

For example, the section Land campaign and invasion already holds its own article. If you wish to expand on that, go to its own article and expand the information there. As for the article, it should only hold a summary of the events. User:Keysanger (I have to single him out) has turned this section into a Content forking. If this user wants to include things such as the "Lackawana Conference" in the article, it should be done in one elaborated sentence that goes straight to the point. Per Article size, I will revert the information back to the summary-style that used to be in place.

And no, Keysanger, it's not that I have anything against you or that you're an "opponent." There are some basic Wiki rules that have to be followed. If you want to see this article promoted to "GA Status," the page has to be at about 82 KB. There are only very few and rare exceptions that Wikipedia allows for more, but this article does not need it.--MarshalN20.14:57, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Prado- Pierola: 300 deads
Hi Marshal,

You deleted a lot of information about the circumtances of Prado's trip to Panamathe and Putsch Pierola against Prado. All this information was referenced and it is uncontested. Remember that to delete referenced information can be considered vandalism. Would you be so kind to rewrite this important data to the main article.

--Keysanger (talk) 10:37, 23 July 2009 (UTC)


 * First, what is "Prado's trip to Panamathe and Putsch Pierola against Prado." Please write more clearly.
 * Second, like I mentioned above, I know you probably would even like to include the name of Prado's great-grandfather, but according to the WP:Summary style only truly relevant information to the overall topic is necessary to be included. If you want to include information regarding this thing you mention, you should ask yourself first if it is truly important to mention (Why is it relevant?), and then includ the information in as much of a short form as possible (Summarize in one or two elaborate sentences).
 * Remember to summarize!--$%MarshalN20%$ (talk) 13:37, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

To your information Prado was the president of Peru at the begining of the war.

Pierola was the President of Peru at the Batle of Chorrillos.

Do you know how get pierola president?

--Keysanger (talk) 20:08, 23 July 2009 (UTC)


 * If you think it's relevant for the article, then go ahead and look for it and put it in there. Like I said before, there are other articles related to the War of the Pacific that have been created for the purpose of expanding the information. However, if you add it on the main War of the Pacific article, please try to summarize the event to the most relevant point possible.--$%MarshalN20%$ (talk) 20:54, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Role of Argentina and Britain equal??
Besides, the ships (which Peru also got from Britain) and money (which Peru got from France) how does British role equal that of Argentina?

Did the British parlament also sign into a secret alliance with Chile?

The section violates POV content fork and undue weight. Likeminas (talk) 15:56, 28 July 2009 (UTC)


 * You're acting like you WP:Own the article. You should be ashamed of your actions Likeminas. WP:BOLD does not encourage deletion of 34,000 bytes of sourced material.--$%MarshalN20%$ (talk) 16:52, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Once again, discuss content not the user.
 * Likeminas (talk) 16:55, 28 July 2009 (UTC)


 * The destruction of sourced material reminds me of the Chilean occupation of Lima. And it's the 28 of July, how ironic.--$%MarshalN20%$ (talk) 17:05, 28 July 2009 (UTC)


 * That's very sad, indeed. Let's all take a minute of silence in memory of the fallen.
 * Likeminas (talk) 18:53, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Restoring to less contentious version
I restored to the older version of this article. The changes recently made to the article, with the inclusion of fraudulent sources is much more contentious than it previously was. The new version loaded with POV edits heavily done by a single user is not an improvement.

I would like to improve this article, as I assume all of you want. But to do that, we nee to have a rational and dispassionate discussion that focuses on content rather than the user. That’s why I propose we discuss any major changes before they’re implemented in the article.

This approach will allow us to raise questions of relevance, due weight and sources before they’re inserted in the article, which in turn, will reduce the chances of that content being challenged in the future. I invite all contributors of this article to go an read the Spanish version as it serves a good example of a dispassionate and rather neutral looking article. http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guerra_del_Pac%C3%ADfico

Likeminas (talk) 16:24, 28 July 2009 (UTC)


 * You have made a major deletion of sourced material, around 34,000 bytes. You should truly be ashamed of yourself Likeminas.--$%MarshalN20%$ (talk) 16:50, 28 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I have to remind Marshall to discuss content rather than the user. There's a rationale behind the revert. I will elaborate even more, if need be.
 * Likeminas (talk) 16:53, 28 July 2009 (UTC)


 * No explanation you give will support the deletion of 34,000 bytes of sourced material.--$%MarshalN20%$ (talk) 16:55, 28 July 2009 (UTC)


 * POV loaded edits, use of fraudulent sources and content forking all done by a single user are strong support.
 * Likeminas (talk) 16:58, 28 July 2009 (UTC)


 * You cannot prove my edits were "POV loaded" (Because they weren't), and you can't argue "fraudulent sources" or "content forking." All of those are simple accusations from your part. Unproven accusations do not justify the deletion of 34,000 bytes of sourced material.--$%MarshalN20%$ (talk) 17:01, 28 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I find it equally ironic to see you mention the Spanish version of this article, when that is exactly what was used to translate text into the sections of the article. Your edits should be ashamed of themselves.--$%MarshalN20%$ (talk) 17:09, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

I support plenty Likeminas's doing. The article was awkfully biased in wording, theme selection, weight of the facts, seriousness of sources, etc.

Our failed attempts to improve the article will remain in the repository of wikipedia and can be recovered if we get a consensus about the use. But unfortunately most of them are not appropriate to build a consensus.

I am open minded for any proposal. Let's improve the article within the rules of wikipedia.

--Keysanger (talk) 17:11, 28 July 2009 (UTC)


 * The two of you can claim as many things as you want, but the deletion of 34,000 bytes of sourced material is not justified by any of your opinions. On the same note, I respected the decision of Likeminas to keep Argentina in the "Crisis" section, and I also respected the information Likeminas added in the now-deleted section on "World Views" (which, Keysanger, you agreed in its creation). However, Likeminas's edits did not show respect for the prior addition of source material and my contributions. Nonetheless, the main issue here is that 34,000 bytes of sourced material were deleted, and no Wikipedia administrator is going to buy your opinion that they were POV without any actual proof other than your opinion.--$%MarshalN20%$ (talk) 17:28, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Marshal, it doesn't make sense to discuss about the old biased article. It was imposible to reach consensus on this base. I agreed to the creation, but not to this monstrosity (importance of Argentina= importance Great Britain), to mention only one of the failures of the old article.

I propose:

1) to elaborate a "table of contents" based in recognized books about the War of the Pacific. I find "Andean Tragedy" of (?) a possible choice. I think that is easy because all good authors agree on the main themes.

2) to make a rough estimate of the lenght for every theme

3) to write and cite from well known authors, with page number and a short passage of the relevant text to avoid misunderstandings and to give the interested reader a glance of the authors view. No more blogs, or 800 pages books without the position of the support sentence, no more contested websites.

4) I think for daring thesis we can let a "Analisys" chapter at the end of the article, but announcing to the reader that it is thesis.

5) but first and foremost we have to keep cool. No personal attacks. No You are ... but your proposal is ....

I am sure we can get it.

--Keysanger (talk) 17:52, 28 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I support that proposal. However, in the coming days, I won't be having much free time to contribute, but once I get a chance I will definitely be helping out.
 * Likeminas (talk) 19:16, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Further corroboration of POV edits:
''Blaine was denounced at home as a bellicose meddler and corrupt practitioner of “guano diplomacy”, who sought to make a financial killing by supporting the specious claims of unscrupulous entrepreneurs and hustler to guano deposits in Peru. Charges for which he was later investigated''
 * “Summarizing” of U.S. role blatantly deletes sentence The United States tried to bring an early end to the war, mainly because of American financial interests in Peru, while it leaves Blaine’s sentence of It is a complete mistake to see this as a Chilean war against Peru. [Rather] it is a British war against Peru using Chile as its instrument In addition to deleting Blaine's personal involment in Peru's Guano.
 * 


 * Usage of a single (Peruvian Historian) source, not readily accessible
 * while claiming that Chilean history sources are biased.
 * .


 * Usage of ultra-nationalistic (thus unreliable) websites to back up POV-loaded edits.
 * 


 * Creation of undue weight section called Role of Britain:
 * 


 * Suspected usage of fraudulent sources to back-up POV-loaded edits
 * .

The list goes on but those are few of the proven accusations and the main reason of why the last version of the article was highly POV and needed to be discussed.

Likeminas (talk) 18:04, 28 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Please stop this inauspiciousness discussion. That will get you nowhere but further and further discussions, diffs more diffs and wasted time.


 * --Keysanger (talk) 19:50, 28 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Sure, I just wanted to list a few POV edits in order to show why restoration of an older version is warranted.
 * Likeminas (talk) 19:55, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Those are your opinions. You deleted 34,000 bytes of sourced material, and you'll have to explain yourself to high authorities if you continue with such nonsense.--$%MarshalN20%$ (talk) 20:07, 28 July 2009 (UTC)


 * That's exactly why I wanted to gather a few of your edits, dear Marshall, so that it cannot be claimed it is my opinion. It's all right there on the links I provided.
 * High authorities would be welcomed here, as perhaps, your POV pushing might need to do some explaining. Can we get back to improving the article now?
 * Likeminas (talk) 20:17, 28 July 2009 (UTC)


 * You keep making personal attacks against me by constantly accusing me of POV pushing. Also, as I mentioned earlier, your unproven opinions are by no means a reason to delete 34,000 bytes of sourced material.--$%MarshalN20%$ (talk) 20:38, 28 July 2009(UTC)


 * Pointing out your highly POV edits is not a personal attack but proof beyond reasonable doubt of your biased editing.
 * In any case, I have no intention nor the time of engaging in a futile back and forth with you.
 * In the meantime I will tag the undue section you have recently created. Needless is to say, that I expect you not to remove it until is properly discussed here, else, you will be simply reported to an administrator.
 * Likeminas (talk) 22:05, 28 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Likeminas, you can tag as many things as you want. I really don't care if you even were to tag my pets (nor if they were to attack you). The whole point of this is that you should not be deleting sourced material because you think that it's wrong. Once more, your "proof" of my "biased editing" is nothing. You're simply threatening me. If you actually had "proof" of me doing something wrong, I know for a fact that you would have already sent in the "evidence" to an administrator.--$%MarshalN20%$ (talk) 00:49, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Marshall : No more changes without consensus
Marshall,

you screwed things up. You have added already to the article 28 problems and I will not accept your changes without explicit consensus of the editors. Stop your edits without consensus.

--Keysanger (talk) 19:11, 29 July 2009 (UTC)


 * WTF?--$%MarshalN20%$ (talk) 19:30, 29 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Requesting article protection might solve that for now.
 * Likeminas (talk) 19:48, 29 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Thus far, from the first three "problems" in the article, consensus has been agreed and my statements have changed little to almost nothing. What I find funny from that is that I'm certain all of the "list" of things you have here will end up the same. I have not done anything wrong, and I'm quite proud of the amount of sourced information I have added.--$%MarshalN20%$ (talk) 19:52, 29 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I have to agree, adding Peruheroico.com and pushing Britain's role into the begining of the article among other things can make proud anyone.
 * Likeminas (talk) 19:56, 29 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Like I said before, be part of the solution and not the problem.--$%MarshalN20%$ (talk) 20:02, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 * If you want to be part of the solution you shouldn't boast to much. :).  Dentren  |  Ta lk  20:05, 29 July 2009 (UTC)


 * lol. Boasting is the only way I can keep my other two pals entertained.--$%MarshalN20%$ (talk) 20:07, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Cuek!
 * Likeminas (talk) 20:10, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 * lololol. Not really sure what that means, but it sounded funny. Well, at least I know you have a sense of humor. Plop!--$%MarshalN20%$ (talk) 20:13, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Marshal, your work has been very contentious and have brought the article a lot of pov tags and others. You keep adding on to the Peruvian POV. Your duty is to write a neutral article. So, please stop adding more biased sentences to the article, with other without references.

--Keysanger (talk) 10:48, 18 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Keysanger, you have added the excessive POV tags; I haven't brought them into the article, you have. Dentren and Likeminas are my two witnesses. What exactly did I add that was "Peruvian POV"? It's easy for you to mention it, but where is the evidence? My duty as a Wikipedian is to include factual statements referenced by reliable sources, not to seek neutrality. Neutrality in Wikipedia should only be reached when a statement is challenged by editors who both use reliable sources to back up their claims. All of the statements I have included, with the exception of the paragraph I translated from the Spanish wiki, have had reliable sources. Once again, would you care to bring forth what you claim to be Peruvian POV?--$%MarshalN20%$ (talk) 14:29, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

In regards to the last addition, I think it's necessary to include page numbers for the relevant text, and this link http://www.unirbolivia.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=blogcategory&id=6&Itemid=168 needs to point out which magazine is the one being used. Likeminas (talk) 20:39, 18 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I took what Arafael presented in the "Obs" section of this talk page. He mentions this (in reference to the source brought forth): "Read page 30: Embajador Jorge Gumucio Granier. La Paz, Bolivia. Revista Lazos Nro. 3 ." --$%MarshalN20%$ (talk) 01:08, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Let Arafael does his duty. Your duty is not to write an article but to write a neutral article. --Keysanger (talk) 13:38, 23 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Don't tell me what to do Keysanger. You're the last person I'd listen to in the planet.--$%MarshalN20%$ (talk) 14:23, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Excessive Tagging (Enough is Enough)
This article is getting turned into a carnival of tags!--$%MarshalN20%$ (talk) 18:05, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Why dont we put just the

tag? Dentren |  Ta lk  18:39, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Sure, ehm, Dentren?--$%MarshalN20%$ (talk) 18:33, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

right its me. Dentren |  Ta lk  18:39, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Yay! I thought it was the cookie monster for a second. lol.--$%MarshalN20%$ (talk) 18:43, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

The reader have to be warned about the issues of the article. I told already that the article is awfully biased. Now you see waht taht means. --Keysanger (talk) 19:50, 30 July 2009 (UTC)


 * All I see here is a heavily biased editor disrupting an article because he has a pro-Chilean agenda to promote in the article. None of your edits are constructive (add anything beneficial to the article), and the majority of your edits promote more discord that prevents the advance towards a solution.--$%MarshalN20%$ (talk) 20:17, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

You have reinstalled your biased version after Likeminas restored a less contentious version. See the list of flaws and and accept that your view of the history is contested. The reader has to be warned about the problems of the article and in fact about all the problems. Don't hide the faults, Wikipedia works with transparency.

--Keysanger (talk) 00:31, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

What list of flaws? Why do you keep trying to push your personal agenda? Likeminas made a mistake in removing 34,000 bytes of sourced information; that's understandeable as we are human beings. Both me and Likeminas have agreed to come to more friendly terms. However, you keep vandalizing the article by adding a series of tags that can be easily summarized in one. Moreover, you're comparing my re-addition of 34,000 bytes of sourced information to your vandalism. The sourced information I have added is contested because you want to push your personal agenda against it. Well Keysanger, the sad thing for you is that you will not be able to delete sourced information unless you manage to somehow find other sourced information that can dispute it. That's how Wikipedia works.--$%MarshalN20%$ (talk) 00:48, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

The solution is simple. The flaws are there, let the warnings there. --Keysanger (talk) 00:59, 31 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Now you're using a sock-puppet in order to push your POV! The list of vandalism, POV pushing, and other similar things just goes on and on.--$%MarshalN20%$ (talk) 01:11, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I wasn't logged. 85.177.77.249 is my IP. Now you have it. Keysanger dit it!.

--Keysanger (talk) 01:32, 31 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I really do have better things to do than argue with you over your vandalism. Dentren was the one who originally corrected the excessive amount of tags, and I'm completely sure that I will not be the only one who will do something about this excessive amount of tags. Tags have a purpose, but when you overuse them that purpose is lost.--$%MarshalN20%$ (talk) 01:38, 31 July 2009 (UTC)


 * No need for excessive tagging, it is evident that there are exisiting disputes. Selecciones de la Vida (talk) 15:47, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

The reader has to be warned. Every tag alludes to a significant and different non-conformance in the article:


 * POV - Neutral point of view is one of Wikipedia's three core content policies.
 * Cite check - malpractice of sources
 * Need consensus - When two or more editors cannot reach an agreement by editing, consensus is sought on article talk pages.
 * POV-check - It lacks unbiased writing is the fair, analytical description of all relevant sides of a debate, including the mutual perspectives and the published evidence. Editorial bias toward one particular point of view should be removed or repaired (WP:NPOV)
 * Disputed - Accuracy dispute : it contains a lot of unlikely information, without providing references, it contains information which is particularly difficult to verify. In, for example, a long list, some errors have been found, suggesting that the list as a whole may need further checking. it has been written (or edited) by a user who is known to write inaccurately on the topic.
 * multiple issues - there are not one but multiple flaws.

So every tag is necessary, lack of wake-up call could be misunderstood by the reader.

--Keysanger (talk) 18:57, 31 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Keysanger, you keep vandalising the article with the excessive tagging.--$%MarshalN20%$ (talk) 19:59, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

It is not vandalism, we have to attract editors with different viewpoints because we need additional insight. --Keysanger (talk) 17:58, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Now there are only 3 tags. I think that is enough for both sides and the editwar over. --Keysanger (talk) 18:03, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Discuss topic by topic
I see that there is ongoing dispute between Likeminas and MarshalN20.. Can you just bring up the level the discussion? I propose you both to discuss all disputed paragraphs here one by one as compact as possible. Its very difficult ofr an outsider to catch up the dispute. I propose that the sentences and paragraphs that are agreed here to be poorly sourced should be left in the article for 1 month (with a tag) and be remover afterward if they are still badly sourced.

Issue nr 1
This page,, is used to source issue nr 1. This site is not reliable since it is ultra-nationalistic, perhaps etno-cacerista. The site describes the war as a war of robbery and pillage (rapiña), the occupation of Peru as unhonorable and shameful (ignominioso) and says that the a Chilean extermination and destruction in Lima is proper of war criminals and is a preamble to the Nazi practises in Europe. However the claim about the weapons used by Caceres troops may be true, and should be investigated, and sourced trough proper sources. Dentren |  Ta lk  07:56, 29 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Peruheroico's reliableness is still under consideration of the WP's Reliable Source network; no solution has been finalized on the topic. However, it should not be a problem to find the information from a simple book search.--$%MarshalN20%$ (talk) 14:29, 29 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Okay. Issue solved.--$%MarshalN20%$ (talk) 14:53, 29 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I dont like to remove material or to do thing unilaterally but i think that if no source is found within a month, it means on 29 August then this sentences should be removed.  Dentren  |  Ta lk  17:26, 29 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't agree with that reasoning. Seeing as how slow the discussion is going, all of the problems won't be able to be discussed by the 29th of August. My proposal is: Once an issue begins to be discussed (sub-section is created), it has 31 (or 30) days to be resolved; otherwise it gets deleted or falls into a Wiki-dispute thing.--$%MarshalN20%$ (talk) 17:39, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Issue Nr 2

 * After a taxation controversy in a territory disputed by Chile and Bolivia, the crisis worsened following the Chilean invasion of Bolivian territory and the discovery of a secret defensive alliance between Bolivia and Peru
 * (Belated added by --Keysanger (talk) 18:23, 6 August 2009 (UTC))

The word worsened aplied to the Chilean response to the Bolivian facts is POV --Keysanger (talk) 13:11, 29 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Sometimes I get the feeling that you're not very good at the English language. In order to clear my doubts, would you care to explain how it is POV? I can just as easily say: Pinochet is a funny man. Yet, if I give no explanation on how he is funny, it's just a pointless statement.--$%MarshalN20%$ (talk) 14:32, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

No personal attacks. --Keysanger (talk) 16:48, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

If it doesn't matter, then I will change the order of the adjetives. --Keysanger (talk) 16:48, 29 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Do you not understand English? You have to explain why you think it's POV, otherwise your argument holds no foundation.--$%MarshalN20%$ (talk) 17:02, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

How is it resolved? You:
 * 1) Haven't explained how the original statement is POV.
 * 2) Claim the matter is resolved when you have given no explanation to your claims.
 * 3) Lie in the edit summary by claiming your edit comes from the solution of "Issue Nr. 2"
 * 4) Distort the sentence, which reads in full context: "After a taxation controversy in a territory disputed by Chile and Bolivia, the crisis worsened following the Chilean invasion of Bolivian territory and the discovery of a secret defensive alliance between Bolivia and Peru."

In other words, the usage of the word "worsened" goes both to the Chilean invasion of Bolivian territory and the discovery of the secret defensive alliance between Bolivia and Peru. Which makes me repeat the question, how is it POV?--$%MarshalN20%$ (talk) 16:59, 29 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Why not to the Bolivian	breach of agreement ? --Keysanger (talk) 17:15, 29 July 2009 (UTC)


 * The Bolivian breach of the agreement is what started the crisis! That's why I keep asking you if you understand English. The whole paragraph is made in effective English grammar that is by no means POV. It's all so simple: Bolivia's breach of the agreement started the crisis, and the Chilean invasion of Antofagasta and the discovery of the secret defensive alliance made it worse. Why is it POV?--$%MarshalN20%$ (talk) 17:35, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

After a taxation controversy in a territory disputed by Chile and Bolivia, the crisis was followed by a Chilean invasion of Bolivian territory and the discovery of a secret defensive alliance between Bolivia and Peru Has anybody problems with this version of the text? Dentren |  Ta lk  17:23, 29 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, I have a problem with it. It's not explaining that the crisis got worse after those things happened. Why is the original statement POV? That's all I'm asking. Why is it POV?--$%MarshalN20%$ (talk) 17:35, 29 July 2009 (UTC)


 * If you are going to argue something, please present an explanation for your argument. It's annoying to have to argue something that does not even have a foundation.--$%MarshalN20%$ (talk) 17:36, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

It is POV because assign to Chile the blame of the "the situation worsened". I agree Dentren's proposal. --Keysanger (talk) 17:41, 29 July 2009 (UTC)


 * That is your foundation? Read the whole sentence again: "After a taxation controversy in a territory disputed by Chile and Bolivia, the crisis worsened following the Chilean invasion of Bolivian territory and the discovery of a secret defensive alliance between Bolivia and Peru." That is not giving Chile the blame of "the situation worsened." If you understood what you read, then you would clearly see that the "worsened" part is going for both the invasion of Antofagasta and the discovery of the secret treaty. If you don't understand English, please consult with people who do know the language before attempting to make illogical claims.--$%MarshalN20%$ (talk) 17:47, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, you are right. you would clearly see that the "worsened" part is going for both the invasion of Antofagasta and the discovery of the secret treaty. The first part (invasion of Antofagasta) blames Chile.

Next personal attack and I will think it’s necessary that an administrator intervenes. --Keysanger (talk) 17:52, 29 July 2009 (UTC) I hope Marshal has understand now what is wrong. We use Dentren's proposal as consensus:
 * After a taxation controversy in a territory disputed by Chile and Bolivia, the crisis was followed by a Chilean invasion of Bolivian territory and the discovery of a secret defensive alliance between Bolivia and Peru

--Keysanger (talk) 17:56, 29 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Go right ahead; do as you wish, contact an administrator so that they may see the illogical argument you are creating. The "worsened" part is refering to the discovery of the defensive alliance and the invasion of Bolivia. It's not POV, and it's in perfect English grammar. I seriously can't believe what I'm reading from you.--$%MarshalN20%$ (talk) 17:57, 29 July 2009 (UTC)


 * No. Dentren's proposal is NOT of consensus. A one person claim of "consensus" is by no means actual consensus; especially if the person in question fails to understand the meaning of a simple sentence.--$%MarshalN20%$ (talk) 18:01, 29 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I also agree with Dentren's proposal, which makes it a virtual consensus (which may I add needs not be unanimous), now if another user disputes this temporary consensus of the majority, he should give strong arguments against its implementation. Otherwise, that use might be trying to push his POV and make a point.


 * I also think an administrator attention might be needed at this point, Marshall's personal attacks are just getting out of control.
 * Likeminas (talk) 18:07, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

MArshal I understand your point of view, but tell me whats wrong with the other version? I made it not because I believed that "worsened" was a totally flawed, but to avoid "qualifiers". Dentren |  Ta lk  18:16, 29 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you Dentren for understanding my position, may the Lord bless you with a week of joy (or, if you don't believe in that, then I wish you my best regards). Let me explain (with two simple points) why I think your proposal is not an improvement:


 * This is what you wrote: "After a taxation controversy in a territory disputed by Chile and Bolivia, the crisis was followed by a Chilean invasion of Bolivian territory and the discovery of a secret defensive alliance between Bolivia and Peru."


 * 1) The word "After" (at the sentence's beginning) and the statement "was followed by a" (which is what you proposed) both make themselves redundant.
 * 2) The "crisis" was not "followed by" the secret alliance treaty and the Chilean invasion of Antofagasta. Both of those things are part of the crisis.

All I see from Keysanger's opinion is that he does not want the Chilean invasion of Antofagasta to be seen as making the matter worse. How can it not make the matter worse? It would be like saying that Germany's invasion of the Czech zone of Czechoslovakia did not make the crisis prior to WW II worse. It's illogical. Moreover, the "worse" part is mentioning both the discovery of the secret defensive alliance (which is Peru and Bolivia's creation) and the invasion of Antofagasta. In other words, no single country is being aimed. Do you understand?--$%MarshalN20%$ (talk) 18:29, 29 July 2009 (UTC)


 * what if replace "crisis worsened" with "relations worsened"? Dentren  |  Ta lk  18:35, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Not a satisfactory objection by Marshall. Logic tells us that in a sequence of events, one event must be followed and preceded by another. In addition, usage of qualifiers (weasel wording) such as “worsened” is discouraged by Wikipedia’s rule. Likeminas (talk) 18:40, 29 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Worsened is not a weasel word. Likeminas, if you're not going to be part of the solution, please don't be a part of the problem.--$%MarshalN20%$ (talk) 18:50, 29 July 2009 (UTC)


 * In response to Dentren, whom it seems has been sent by a superior entity to help improve the article. "Relations worsened" sounds good to me, but it still does not have the correct explanation on the matter. "Relations worsened" is true, don't get me wrong, and I agree with it (and the sources, and history, agree with it). However, like I mentioned in my other response, this situation is still part of the crisis. I have not meant anything against Chile with "the crisis worsened," nor have I meant anything against Bolivia and Peru with "the crisis worsened." It's not POV. The crisis did worsen after the discovery of the secret defensive alliance and the invasion of Antofagasta. I still don't understand why it's wrong? Why? Why is it POV? Why? I'm trying to be as fair as possible, but nobody has been able to truly explain "Why?"--$%MarshalN20%$ (talk) 18:50, 29 July 2009 (UTC)


 * So I think that is enough. Marshal agree that the sentence blames Chile: "he [Keysanger] does not want the Chilean invasion of Antofagasta to be seen as making the matter worse". That is right. I don't want that, not for Chile, not for Peru and not for Bolivia. Wikipedia Neutrality.

I replaced the sentence with Dentren's first proposal. --Keysanger (talk) 18:59, 29 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I propose the following;
 * "After a taxation controversy in a territory disputed by Chile and Bolivia, the crisis was deepened after the Chilean occupation of Bolivian territory and the discovery of a secret defensive alliance between Bolivia and Peru"
 * The word Invasion might also be POV as the population of Antofagasta was 95% Chilean at the time and its habitans did not see it as an invasion. I believe occupation is more accurate.
 * Likeminas (talk) 19:02, 29 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Likeminas's proposal is perfect. Thank you Likeminas. And yes, your wording does sound more neutral. See? I'm not attempting to fight with the lot of you. If you use reasonable solutions to a reasonable discussion, then all things will be easily fixed. On the other hand, if you use illogical ideas of "Wikipedia neutrality" (when you apparently don't even understand the English language), problems will not be fixed but rather they will be "deepened" (Using Likemina's more "neutral" wording for "worsened").--$%MarshalN20%$ (talk) 19:04, 29 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I think invaded is better than occupysince occupy contradicts Chilean views of re-asserting Chilean sovereignty that had been passed over to Bolivian from 1866 to 1879. Following this view a country does not "occupy" a piece of land that is rightfully hers. Apart from this I agree with likeminas proposal. Dentren |  Ta lk  19:18, 29 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm fine with either "Occupy" or "Invaded." However, based on Dentren's explanation, "Invaded" does sound like the better term.--$%MarshalN20%$ (talk) 19:22, 29 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Is this issue resolved?--$%MarshalN20%$ (talk) 20:17, 29 July 2009 (UTC)


 * After a taxation controversy in a territory disputed by Chile and Bolivia, the crisis deepened after the Chilean invasion of Bolivian territory and the discovery of a secret defensive alliance between Bolivia and Peru is this then the final version? Dentren  |  Ta lk  14:16, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't like the current version and I am not alone. Despite my poor english knowledge, others agree that :
 * The sentence is confusing, though, because its construction makes it difficult to follow what happened. Apparently the worsening of the crisis occurred (a) after a taxation controversy and (b) following an invasion and the discovery of a secret alliance. So apparently there was a taxation controversy, then there was an invasion and the discovery of a secret alliance, and then the crisis worsened. The reader is left uncertain how these disparate elements fit together. (John M Baker)
 * The way it's currently drafted, people won't "look more closely into the article", they'll be put off from going any further. For it to work as a summary, it needs to be made less confusing and to be broken down more clearly into its constituent parts. John M Baker is quite right, you need to make it clear how they fit together in the lead (Richardrj)

"worsened" or "deepened" doesn't change the quality. It is bad quality. I will make a proposal in the next days. --Keysanger (talk) 18:23, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Issue nr 3
I see two possible ways of saying it: Peru ceded or Chile annexed. Ceded is the wording of the treaty, but wikipedia does not need to follow it exactly, annexed on the other side is correct to. IIs this relevant? Ask any Chilean historian, Chile annexed Tarapaca, and ask any Peruvian historian the Peruvian government (in Lima?) had to cede Dentren |  Ta lk  18:36, 29 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I believe "ceded" is correct. I remember when we were discussing the issue of Bolivia declaring war on Chile, Arafael and Marshall argued that omission of a explicit war declaration on the decree against Chilean property supported the position that Bolivia had not officially declared war on Chile.
 * Well, now we have an official document explicitly calling it "ceded", which leaves no room for ambiguity or interpretations. In addition, the original document trumps any other possible source that might arise claiming otherwise.
 * Likeminas (talk) 18:51, 29 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Peru ceded Tarapaca, and Bolivia ceded its Litoral department; as a result of the war. However, the problem is that Arica was not ceded by Peru. Arica was to stay under Chilean control for some time until some plebiscite was held (Tacna and Tarata were also under Chilean control; Peru didn't cede those two provinces either); but Chile and Peru never found agreeable terms on the matter. A treaty sponsored by the US, eventually led to a compromise that made Peru keep Tacna and Chile keep Arica. More proof that Peru didn't cede Arica was that Chile gave Peru a port in Arica as part of the compromise between both nations. HOWEVER, Chile did annex Tarapaca, Antofagasta (Litoral), and Arica. Do you understand what I mean (I'm sure you, Dentren, do, but I ask mainly for the others)?--$%MarshalN20%$ (talk) 18:57, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Peru ceded Tarapaca, and Bolivia ceded its Litoral department; as a result of the war That is right. How would you denominate the Arica handing over?. Please sumarize, --Keysanger (talk) 19:03, 29 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Well the use of the word of annexation is not wrong either, and we should be careful to not rely blindly on official documents since they can sometimes use the language of the victor. As I understand it annextion usually connotes the acquisition of territory that were formerly under another states possession, and can implies some coercion, expansionism or unilateralism. In the article Mexican-American War the word annexation is used. Why not here? I dont know anybody here that believed that the adquisition of Tarapaca was "just and fair", it was new land that had never before been in touch with Chile. Using annexation for the Bolivian Litoral is different.. Chile had a set of arguments to legitimize it as Chilean since colonial times. Since the sentence is refering to both territories I have to agree that ceded would be more adequate.

Arica was first occupied by Chile but then ultimately ceded by Peru. Dentren |  Ta lk  19:08, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Marshall accepted Cession. Resolved --Keysanger (talk) 19:17, 29 July 2009 (UTC)


 * How did I "accept" cession? Can you explain that to me Keysanger? Here's the more neutral proposal on how both things can be mixed:

How's that for consensus?--$%MarshalN20%$ (talk) 19:20, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The conclusion of the conflict ultimately led to the Chilean annexation of the ceded Peruvian territories of Tarapaca and Arica, as well as the ceded Bolivian department of Litoral, leaving Bolivia as a landlocked country.


 * The description is correct but it is idiomatically, let us say, not so beautiful. "annexation of the ceded" is correct but ugly, can we not change that to "acquisition" or something else?    Dentren  |  Ta lk  19:43, 29 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Sure. I'm in favor of making the article look "pretty." Can you make a full sentence of what you propose?--$%MarshalN20%$ (talk) 19:48, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

You wrote:


 * Well the use of the word of annexation is not wrong either, and we should be careful to not rely blindly on official documents since they can sometimes use the language of the victor. As I understand it annextion usually connotes the acquisition of territory that were formerly under another states possession, and can implies some coercion, expansionism or unilateralism. In the article Mexican-American War the word annexation is used. Why not here? I dont know anybody here that believed that the adquisition of Tarapaca was "just and fair", it was new land that had never before been in touch with Chile. Using annexation for the Bolivian Litoral is different.. Chile had a set of arguments to legitimize it as Chilean since colonial times. Since the sentence is refering to both territories I have to agree that ceded would be more adequate.

--Keysanger (talk) 19:45, 29 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Dentren wrote all of that....*sighs*--$%MarshalN20%$ (talk) 19:48, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

I disagree. --Keysanger (talk) 19:50, 29 July 2009 (UTC)


 * The use of "annexation" is acceptable for Tarapaca and arica but does not fit in Litoral. If we are refering to both in one sweep, then acquisition or ceded are good terms. Dentren  |  Ta lk  19:52, 29 July 2009 (UTC)


 * The conclusion of the conflict ultimately led to the Chilean acquisition of the Peruvian territories of Tarapaca and Arica, as well as the disputed Bolivian department of Litoral, leaving Bolivia as a landlocked country. Who like this version? Dentren |  Ta lk  19:57, 29 July 2009 (UTC)


 * It seems fine.
 * Likeminas (talk) 19:59, 29 July 2009 (UTC)


 * It sounds good to me. Not much of a change from the other one, but if the simple change of one word for another makes the rest of you happy, go for it.--$%MarshalN20%$ (talk) 20:02, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Is this issue resolved?--$%MarshalN20%$ (talk) 20:24, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 * From my part, yes. Dentren  |  Ta lk  05:52, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Issue Nr.5 & Issue Nr.6
Can anybody explain to me what the problem is in "Issue N. 5"? I've tried reading it a couple of times, but I don't understand the problem.--$%MarshalN20%$ (talk) 01:26, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
 * was not directly can be changed to was not. Dentren  |  Ta lk  05:51, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Sure. I suppose that's an improvement to the sentence. I still don't see what's wrong with the other one, but I'll go with what Dentren's currently proposing if that will appease everyone.--$%MarshalN20%$ (talk) 06:38, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

The text is:


 * Chile was not directly mentioned in the text of the treaty, but was not informed about its existence, which leads Chilean historians to believe that the treaty was in reality aimed against Chile

1) There is a unlogical but joining two sentences:
 * Chile was not directly mentioned in the text of the treaty, but was not informed about its existence

It doesn't make sense to say " … but … " because the second sentence (was not informed about its existence) doesn't contradict or correct the first sentence (Chile was not directly mentioned in the text of the treaty). In this case you could say " … and … ".

2) Wikipedia's duty Five pillars is not to explain the history ( or what lead the Chileans/Peruvian/Bolivians historians). Wikipedia's duty is to expone the facts and the knowledge of the historians about it, and that, with reliable sources and not original research. The word "lead" is out of place because it tries to explain the history.

3) Not only Chilean historians believe that the treaty was in reality aimed against Chile. Also Italian, French, US-American historian and the Chilean Government believe that the treaty was a menace for Chile. See the Cabal mediation about the theme defensive/offensive led by Gigs in this page.

4) Furthermore, the "leads" take the defensive character of the treaty for granted.

I propose:


 * Chile was not directly mentioned in the text of the treaty and was not informed about its existence, unlike Argentina. As the treaty was published in Peru few days before the declaration of war, the Chilean Government considered it as offensive and was one of the reasons given to declare the war(ref)See Manifest of the Chilean government to the representatives of friendly powers with reference to the declaration of war against Peru. Alejandro Fierro, Chilean Ministry of Foreign affairs, Santiago April 12, 1879 here, page 170:
 * …The secret treaty of the of Febreaury 6, 1873 needs to no lengthy examination to ascertain its object; and the reserve in which it has been maintained confirms in the least suspicious mind the conviction that it was entered into solely to aid the schemes of the government of Bolivia, a perpetual conspirator of the treaty of 1866. In 1873, neither Peru nor Bolivia was threatened by the remotest danger of territorial dismemberment; and much less could it be foreseen that Chile cherished such idea, seeing that it had granted to Bolivia whatever that republic demanded in the convention of 1866- applauded by the Bolivian people as a splendid manifestation of Chilean generosity………. ……….If the treaty meant a general guarantee against any advance of a foreign power, why was the cooperation of Chile not sought, which has given more than one example of being the first to contribute, with its men and its wealth, towards the maintenance of the sovereignty of nations of a common origin?.............. ...........The treaty of 1873 owed its origin –hidden as a shameful act – to the measures adopted by Peru at that epoch, to justify one of the most audacious and cruel spoliation witnessed by countries submitted to a regime of common respect toward the industry of all nations. Peru desired to monopolize and appropriate the nitrate works; and in order to sustain its daily diminishing credit…(/ref)

I am sure, it can be improved.

--Keysanger (talk) 11:15, 30 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Keysanger, I really I'm not trying to "personally attack" you, but your English grammar is horrible. I truly am quite the "Grammar Nazi," if there is one way to describe part of my personality. In fact, I can't even stand myself when I make grammar errors! Much less will I stand for other people to attempt to make themselves sound like grammar experts when they hold no such knowledge!!


 * 1) Dentren's proposal is still by far the best proposal, in terms of agreement (Me and him agree on it, not sure about Likeminas; but you apparently don't).
 * 2) The "but" is not illogical. It is perfect usage of English grammar.
 * 3) "Leads" is not going against Wiki's pillars. You're attempting to use a policy that you don't even understand.
 * 4) Instead of using "Chilean historians," I think that the word "Chilean government" is better; which is what you suggested.
 * In light of all of these things, the new improved sentence would be:


 * Chile was not mentioned in the text of the treaty, but was not informed about its existence, which led the Chilean government to believe that the treaty was in reality aimed against Chile.
 * I think that this should be something everybody can agree with. I'll even take it to the Reference Desk for Language in order to "check" (Even though I know I really don't need to check it) the sentence's grammar.--$%MarshalN20%$ (talk) 14:54, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

I did a check at the reference desk, and they said that the sentence was OK. However, they proposed an even better sentence: This sounds much better.--$%MarshalN20%$ (talk) 18:11, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Although Chile was not mentioned in the text of the treaty, the signatories' failure to reveal it to the Chilean government led the government to conclude that the alliance was directed against Chile.
 * It has been argued that the secret treaty was never meant to be revealed to Chile the treaty. Can we state that there was a failure in showing it to Chile? Im not sure about the usage of the English word failure. I would say
 * Even if Chile was not mentioned in the text of the treaty, it was not informed about its existence, as in case of Argentina, which leads Chilean historians to believe that the treaty was in reality aimed against Chile. What about this version? This issue seems more of a wording problem than a problem of content. Dentren |  Ta lk  18:40, 30 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Most of the "problems" listed at the list are wording problems. That's why I said in the other section that I'm sure most of these sentences won't really change much; but I suppose that it's always good to do grammar fixes (if they are such "big" issues that lead to accusations of "Peruvian POV;" which in reality should be called "Peruvian Grammar Errors." Noting, however, that the grammar errors themselves are really not present.). Here are a couple of points I would like to mention from your sentence:

Which, leads me to propose this sentence (which the Ref. Lang. Desk of Wikipedia suggested): What do the rest of you think?--$%MarshalN20%$ (talk) 18:56, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) It's not necessary to mention Argentina in this sentence. In the paragraph, Argentina is already mentioned (5th paragraph, "Background" section).
 * 2) "Chilean historians" is incorrect as other historians (non-Chilean) have also mentioned this to be a possibility. Keysanger's proposal of "Chilean government" is more accurate.
 * Although Chile was not mentioned in the text of the treaty, the signatories' failure to reveal it to the Chilean government led the government to conclude that the alliance was directed against Chile.
 * Although Chile was not mentioned in the text of the treaty, the signatories' failure to reveal it to the Chile an government led the Chilean government to conclude that the alliance was directed against Chile. I fixed your version a little bit, by saying Chile it is understood that its refering to the Chilean government. Dentren  |  Ta lk  19:17, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks Dentren. Yes, I like the new sentence even better. So, is this problem solved?--$%MarshalN20%$ (talk) 20:19, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

What failure can be there, the treaty was secret.


 * remove leads, don't explain or conclude things
 * that was not a failure, it was intended

--Keysanger (talk) 20:22, 30 July 2009 (UTC)


 * "Leads" is part of the grammar structure of the sentence. Please learn more about English grammar before attempting to erroneously use Wikipedia policies.
 * "Failure" is correctly used in the sentence. Peru & Bolivia showed the treaty to Argentina, which is explained on the other sentence, but failed to show it to Chile.
 * Be part of the solution not the problem. If you don't know what you're talking about, don't create an argument based on ignorance.--$%MarshalN20%$ (talk) 20:40, 30 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Im not sure about the usage of "failure", but as I understand it you "fail" when you intend do something but are able to do that. Is there any source that claims that Peru and Bolivia did not "failed" in that? For thisv reason I propose this version:


 * Although Chile was not mentioned in the text of the treaty, its secret nature led the Chilean government to conclude that the alliance was directed against Chile. Dentren  |  Ta lk  09:33, 31 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I think that is acceptable.--$%MarshalN20%$ (talk) 14:21, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

As long as the text "explains" the history, the sentence is wrong. And as long as the text says failure for secrecy ... --Keysanger (talk) 19:14, 31 July 2009 (UTC)


 * How can a consensus be reached if you keep making childish rants, illogical arguments, and silly demands? Read Dentren's last proposal, that is by far the best. It seems obvious to me that all you want to do is delete these sentences in order to make it seem as if Chile is some sort of victim. Dentren's last proposal presents the sourced facts as they are, with no support attached to either side.--$%MarshalN20%$ (talk) 20:15, 31 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Although Chile was not mentioned in the text of the treaty, the Chilean government claimed that it was directed against Chile alluding to its secret nature.
 * Although Chile was not mentioned in the text of the treaty, its secret nature led the Chilean government to conclude that the alliance was directed against Chile.
 * Although Chile was not mentioned in the text of the treaty, its secret nature and the knowledge of it by Argentine and Brazilian officials have led Chilean historiography to conclude that the alliance was directed against Chile.
 * I have written 3 versions, feel free to re-combine them. I sure there will be sources for all of them. Dentren |  Ta lk  17:17, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * All of them seem to be fine (in terms of language) and most importantly, they seem to be supported by the sources currently available. The last one, however, gives a fuller understanding of why it was seen as other than defensive, as it  introduces information about the awareness by other governments, which in turn, exacerbated Chilean suspicions about the real intentions of the treaty.
 * By the way, do we have sources corroborating that Brazilian officials knew about the treaty?
 * Likeminas (talk) 18:19, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Your proposal are wrong:


 * not only Chilean government, not only Chilean histography but many international historians ...
 * Although Chile was not mentioned in the text is a very simple-hearted, Peru-biased interpretation of the treaty and lacks completly the regional relations during the signing of the treaty. Wikipedia should refrain of intepret the text of the treaty.

The solution for this issue is closely connected with the result of the Cabal Mediation defensive/offensive. Let us wait for Gigs's recommendation. --Keysanger (talk) 19:35, 5 August 2009 (UTC)


 * If there are sources from many international historians please feel free to list them. They could be useful.
 * Likeminas (talk) 20:08, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

I gladly repeat and add some others:


 * 1) Donald E. Worcester and Wendell G. Schaeffer, "The Growth and Culture of Latin America", New York, Oxford University Press, 1956, 963 pages. Page 706, Relevant Text
 * the treaty is called (only) defensive-offensive, the authors don't go into details.
 * 2) Alfred Barnaby Thomas, Profesor of History, University of Alabama,"Latin America, A History", The Macmillian Company, New York, 1956, 800 pages. Page 450, Relevant Text
 * the treaty is called (only) defensive-offensive, the authors don't go into details.
 * 3) Charles de Varigny, La Guerra del Pacifico, page 18, here Relevant Text
 * the treaty is called defensive-offensive and go into details, that is why is considered offensive.
 * 4) Gonzalo Bulnes, "Chile and Peru, The causes of the War of 1879" page 57 and 58, Relevant Text
 * the treaty is called defensive-offensive and go into details, that is why is considered offensive.
 * 5) Diego Barros Arana, "Historia de la Guerra del Pacifico", parte 1, capitulo III pag. 31, Relevant Text
 * the treaty is called defensive-offensive and go into details, that is why is considered offensive. (not in the cited passage)
 * 6) Chilean Magazin "Que Pasa" here Relevant Text
 * the treaty is called defensive-offensive and go into details, that is why is considered offensive.


 * 7) Manifest of the Chilean government to the representatives of friendly powers with reference to the declaration of war against Peru. Alejandro Fierro, Chilean Ministry of Foreign affairs, Santiago April 12, 1879 here Relevant Text
 * the treaty is not called defensive or offensive but explain why it is considered a to justify one of the most audacious and cruel spoliation witnessed by countries submitted to a regime of common respect toward the industry of all nations and go into details.


 * 8) The New York Times - Current History (1922) here (page 450) Relevant Text
 * the NYT calls the treaty a pact of alliance tacitly directed against Chile

NEW:


 * 9) By Reason or Force: Chile and the Balancing of Power in South America, 1830-1905 by Robert N. Burr, page 130, Relevant text


 * Robert N. Burr calls the treaty the anti-Chilean treaty


 * 10) Latin America's Wars: The age of the caudillo, 1791-1899 by Robert L. Scheina, here, page 375, Relevant text


 * Robert L. Scheina calls the treaty obviously, it was directed against Chile and use the adjective "defensive" as a part of the name of the treaty: "a secret defensive treaty".

That could be enough references for now. --Keysanger (talk) 12:43, 6 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I dont find my proposal, Although Chile was not mentioned in the text of the treaty, its secret nature and the knowledge of it by Argentine and Brazilian officials have led Chilean historiography to conclude that the alliance was directed against Chile, wrong by any means and to say that it biased its something I would only expect from ultranationalist (mainstream in Chile, Peru and Bolivia). Keysanger, with al the sources you have compiled you may surely be able to propose another version, tham I would like to see..  Dentren  |  Ta lk  14:04, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

If you say Although Chile was not mentioned in the text of the treaty, its secret nature… you are making an interpretation of the treaty, you are trying to explain the text. That is forbidden for Wikipedians. We present the treaty, as neutral as posible and we reproduce the opinion of historicians about the treaty, taking distance from their opinion. According with, for example Gonzalo Bulnes, it was not the secrecy of the treaty, at least not alone, what made the treaty a menace for Chile. It was a sequence of circumtances (Peruvian naval 	superiority, Argentine threat in east, Peruvian greed for nitrate and Bolivian need for money). This view is not considered in your its secret nature. Why do you not consider G.Bulnes and the other historians?, why do you consider only Peruvian POV?. Because you do interpret the treaty and use the Peruvian simple-hearted view: Chile was wrong, it was a mistake, we loved Chileans. That doesn't work in history.

Nobody understand the current text, here an example :

''How could the absence of any mention of Chile in the treaty lead the Chilean government to suspect that the intent was sinister? Surely it was just the secrecy of the proceedings that made them suspicious. ''(Deor)

And AGAIN, it is not only the Chilean histography. A lot of historians means the same: The treaty was again Chile. I propose to wait until the Cabal Mediation is finished and then to start with a big clean up of the article.

--Keysanger (talk) 18:58, 6 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I beg to differ.


 * There’s no ambiguity or interpretation when someone writes Chile was not mentioned in the text of the treaty. This is a fact supported by the treaty itself.
 * Now, if we have other (non-Chilean) sources that echo the interpretation of Chilean historiography, then, we could include them as well in a more generic form.
 * How about this sentence;

"Although Chile was not mentioned in the text of the treaty, its secret nature and the knowledge of it by Argentine and Brazilian officials led some to conclude that the alliance was directed against Chile."


 * By the way, the Cabal mediation will be delayed until the moderator comes back from his vacation. In the meantime, I suggest we put forward reasonable proposals, so that, we can get moving along the disputed points.
 * It’s also important, that we find common ground on these issues.
 * Likeminas (talk) 20:39, 6 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Again a agree with
 * "Although Chile was not mentioned in the text of the treaty, its secret nature and the knowledge of it by Argentine and Brazilian officials led some to conclude that the alliance was directed against Chile."
 * until somedy else provides an alternative version. Dentren |  Ta lk  17:00, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

There is a variety of approaches and tools to use to "read" a text, that is interpret a text. I tell you only fews:
 * New Criticism
 * Intentional fallacy
 * Authorial intentionality
 * Affective fallacy
 * Close reading
 * etc

Which one do you want to use for?

Now this are used in Literature, you have to add the the political, economic, historical, military, social circumtances at the time the text as written and interpreted.

You say "Chile was not mentionated", right, it wasn't, but why do you take this approach?. Why was Chile not discarded if Chile had boundary issues with Bolivia and a competition with Peru for the predominance in the south Pacific?. Was Chile targeted?, why didn't Japan or Mongolia react to this treaty? What do your interpretation lacks that can't answer this question?. How can you know that it was this "failure" that "leads" the Chilean Government to this "misunderstanding"?, have one of you the mobile telefon of President Pinto?. Such discussion is a non-ending history. I insist, we must not interprete the treaty. That is the job of the historians. Therefore, among others, Wikipedia forbid such naive attempts.

But I agree, you are right, we should go ahead. I propose:

''In 1873 Peru and Bolivia signed a treaty of alliance which guaranteed the independence, sovereignty and the integrity of their territories, and obliged them to defend each other against all foreign aggression and envisaged for others interested nations. An additional clause kept the treaty secret among the allies. Most historians agree that the treaty targeted Chile but disagree about the defensive or offensive (character/nature) of the treaty(ref)Long list of all founded references pros and cons(/ref). The Government of Chile considered the treaty offensive and mentioned it as one of the causes of the war(ref)Letter of the Chilean Gov. to friendly Nations(/ref)''.

''Argentina had begun secret talks with Peru and Bolivia to join the alliance, and the Argentine Chamber of Deputies, in a secret session, approved the law, but the Argentine Senate postponed the matter to 1874. Later Bolivia, Peru and Argentina could not agree about the inclusion of the name of Chile, the exclusion of Brasil and the boundary issues between Argentina and Bolivia in the treaty.''

(belated signed) --Keysanger (talk) 14:00, 9 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Can agree, but i would like to object the use of Most historians if its not properly source, and by this I doe not mean to get 10 sources, I mean a source than says that "most". Dentren  |  Ta lk  22:41, 10 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree with the post above. Unless a source is provided, stating that most historians agree the treaty targeted Chile we cannot included it as per WP:OR.
 * And no, a list of (mostly Chilean) sources re-stating it won't be enough -unless, of course- we were to change it to Most Chilean historians interpretered it that way.
 * At this point it's clear to me that most historians in fact, DO NOT agree upon that. Lots of sources have been presented noting the diversity of opinion, which evidently is far from a consensus amongst historians. Likeminas (talk) 16:02, 11 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Hello. I've managed to momentarily grab hold of an internet line (I'm at a public library. lol). I've read the discussion and would like to point out to Keysanger that there is no mention of a "misunderstanding" in the text of the article. You're basing your argument on that point, which is incorrect. Also, the new paragraphs you propose are unecessary and go against WP:OR in various points. This is the current paragraph:

''On February 6, 1873, Peru and Bolivia signed a treaty of defensive alliance which guaranteed the independence, sovereignty and the integrity of their territories, and obliged them to defend each other against all foreign aggression. An additional clause kept the treaty secret among the allies.[7] Argentina had begun talks with Peru and Bolivia to join the alliance, and the Chamber of Deputies, in a secret session, approved the law, but the Argentine Senate postponed the matter to 1874. Chile was not directly mentioned in the text of the treaty, but was not informed about its existence, which leads Chilean historians to believe that the treaty was in reality aimed against Chile.[8]''


 * This is what I propose to be the new paragraph (based on Dentren's proposal):

''On February 6, 1873, Peru and Bolivia signed a treaty of defensive alliance which guaranteed the independence, sovereignty and the integrity of their territories, and obliged them to defend each other against all foreign aggression. An additional clause kept the treaty secret among the allies.[7] Argentina had begun talks with Peru and Bolivia to join the alliance, and the Chamber of Deputies, in a secret session, approved the law, but the Argentine Senate postponed the matter to 1874. Although Chile was not mentioned in the text of the treaty, its secret nature and the knowledge of it by Argentine and Brazilian officials led the Chilean government to conclude that the alliance was directed against Chile.[8]''


 * Also, I notice that you, Keysanger, have a problem with the word "led." Such a word is the correct grammar term that has to be used in order to make the sentence flow correctly. It's not a "Pro-Peruvian word" and it's not WP:OR. That's just how English grammar works. Moreover, as Likeminas mentions, historians have a heavily split opinion on whether the alliance was or was not aimed at Chile. However, all historians agree that the Chilean government saw the treaty as a threat to Chile. The word "Some" that Dentren proposed is a weasel word, thus leaving "Chilean government" as the best option to place in that sentence. Can consensus be reached now?--$%MarshalN20%$ (talk) 15:46, 13 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Actually it was me whom proposed some as an alternative version, due to the fact that Keysanger provided (non-Chilean) sources that also call the treaty offensive. To that extent, the word some, albeit ambiguous and generic, acknowledges them as well.
 * I personally don't have any serious objections in regards to this issue and I'm fine with either some or Chilean government as both seem to be supported by the sources, so I'll leave this one up to you guys Likeminas (talk) 20:26, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I wrote most of historians only to preevnt POV, but inreality I never found a historian that denies that Chile was the target of the treaty. I mean "target", that is the ground, the reason of the pact, nothing to do with the nature of the pact (defensive/offensive). Can any one says the name of a source that states that Chile was not targeted?

--Keysanger (talk) 13:11, 23 August 2009 (UTC)


 * A history of Peru By Clements Robert Markham: "The Chileans used this purely defensive treaty, by which arbitration is provided for before there can be a casus foederis, as a pretext for war.".--$%MarshalN20%$ (talk) 14:17, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

See issue 32. --Keysanger (talk) 19:29, 23 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Markham is not Peruvian, and his analysis favors the Peruvian point of view. If there was a non-Chilean author that had an analysis that favored Chile's point of view, should we tag him as "Pro-Chilean"? In other words, your proposal is foolish. As I believe you and/or Likeminas once said, every author has a certain point of view in the matter. Now, mind you, if we were to tag the opinions of all authors as "Pro-Peruvian," "Pro-Bolivian," and "Pro-Chilean," then this article would turn into a piece of trash. I repeat, Markham is not Peruvian. His analysis on the matter, which agrees with the idea that Chile was not targeted, is perfectly valid and without the need to be tagged as "pro-Peruvian."--$%MarshalN20%$ (talk) 14:46, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Your cite of Markham states how the Chileans used the pact, according to Markham. That is irrelevant now.

The issue now is whether there is a historian that states the treaty wasn't oriented/targeted/regarded to Chile, regardless of the nature defensive/offensive of the pact. All the historians that I read said that the pact was signed because Chile's threat to Peru/Bolivia (a defensive pact) or to menace Chile (an offensive pact). I never found a historian that said "The pact was because of Ecuador/Spain/Brasil/anyOther".

That is was mean as I proposed:

Most historians agree that the treaty targeted Chile but disagree about the defensive or offensive (character/nature) of the treaty

If there is consensus about this point, we can go ahead. --Keysanger (talk) 12:28, 26 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Who are your "most historians" that claim that the treaty was aimed at Chile? Markham explicitly states that the treaty was purely defensive, and therefore was not aimed at any country. A purely defensive treaty, by definition, has no aim at any particular nation.--$%MarshalN20%$ (talk) 19:46, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Issue nr 7
Heavy British capital investment drove development through the area, and most of the exploitation of the coastal region of Atacama was conducted by Chilean companies and British investments.


 * I dont see the problem with this, Keysanger, you said that sentence is POV because Brittish drove Chileans, but this sentence does not say that, it just explain that the expoitation of the coast was driven by Chileans and Brittish capital. You ask for sources?   The rejection of Brittish influence on the war is in my eyes a minority view originated in a nationalistic Chilean milieu.  Dentren  |  Ta lk  18:59, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Please write the text of the sentences supporting your statement. And take care about the period of time regarding the text. I can't read your thoughts --Keysanger (talk) 19:10, 31 July 2009 (UTC)


 * el tercer rubro de las inversiones Brítanicas fue la explotacion del salitre, ellos vieron con claridad la importancia de este mineral y resolveireon utilizar al máximo todas las oportunidades financieras que ofracia la explotacion y comercialización del salitre, en un pais que no tenia los recursos necesarios para producir este mineral que el mercado mundial necesitaba con urgencia. pp 35-36 Influencia Britanica en el salitre


 * Fighting broke out when Chilean entrepreneurs and mine-owners in present-day Tarapacá Region and Antofagasta Region, then belonging to Peru and Bolivia, respectively, resisted new taxes, the formation of monopoly companies, and other impositions. In those provinces, most of the deposits of nitrate--a valuable ingredient in fertilizers and explosives -- were owned and mined by Chileans and Europeans, in particular the British.U.S. Library of Congress

There you see that the Brittish drove the development of the nitrate industry. To think that the Chileans did it alone without help is a mistake. Dentren |  Ta lk  20:25, 31 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Keysanger, the pages are provided in each of the references. This one is enough: Read pages 609 and 651. There is no need for sentences to be shown if the book pages are provided. In standard MLA citations, there exists no needs to include specific sentences into your references. It takes away more article space (Increases the article size), and it really serves to make the referencing lists completely unreadable (which goes against Wikipedia policy of Manual of Style and Readability).


 * Also, just as Dentren mentions, British influence in the War of the Pacific is a SOURCED FACT. You can't hide the sun with one finger; much less when the "sun never sets on the British Empire." The United States also had a certain degree of investments in Peru, which led to them to support Peru diplomatically. That's also a sourced fact; and yet nobody is accusing anybody of "POV" because the US is mentioned in the article. Why do you want to push a personal agenda with your beliefs?--$%MarshalN20%$ (talk) 20:07, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

I can not see the text "British drove …", British lead …", "British control …" or the adjective "heavy", "big", "huge" or something like that. Please, tell me, where, in the two showed passages, the authos says that the british "drove". I read that Chileans and Brits together with other europeans did that.

I propose:


 * Chilean and British capital investment drove development through the area, and most of the exploitation of the coastal region of Atacama was conducted by Chilean and British.

--Keysanger (talk) 16:54, 1 August 2009 (UTC)


 * The original sentence is perfect as it is. The first source presented by Dentren clearly states: "en un pais que no tenia los recursos necesarios para producir este mineral" ("In a country that did not have the necessary resources to produce this mineral"). British capital investment in the area was heavy, and it was by far much more than Chilean, Bolivian, or Peruvian capital investment in the area. The only fix to the sentence should be:


 * Heavy British capital investment drove development through the area, and most of the exploitation of the coastal region of Atacama was conducted by British-Chilean companies and British investments. --$%MarshalN20%$ (talk) 20:08, 1 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I tink we can avoid the usage of heavy, it it is understood that to drive a mining company in one the dryest places in the world, you need certain amounts of capital. Apart from that the main differences between your versions are:


 * Chilean and British capital investment drove development through the area, and most of the exploitation of the coastal region of Atacama was conducted by Chilean and British.


 *  Heavy British capital investment drove development through the area, and most of the exploitation of the coastal region of Atacama was conducted by British-Chilean companies and British investments


 * My questions are:
 * what is more accurate; to say that Brittish capital investment drove development or that British and Chilean capital investment drove...
 * exploitation of the coastal region of Atacama was conducted by Chilean and British or exploitation of the coastal region of Atacama was conducted by British-Chilean companies and British investments'' Dentren  |  Ta lk  11:01, 2 August 2009 (UTC)


 * It is more accurate to say "British capital investment drove development". Why? Well, like the quote I provided states, Chile was not in a position to "drive" any sort of development in the Atacama. And if Chile was not in that position, neither were Peru and, even much less, Bolivia. British capital investments drove development in all of the Atacama (Bolivia, Peru, and Chile); which is one of the reasons the British were angered at Peru monopolizing its saltpeter production. This is a re-worked sentence proposal:


 * British capital investments drove development through the area, and most of the exploitation of the coastal region of the Atacama was conducted by British-Chilean companies.


 * This new sentence takes out "and British investments" as it is a repetition of the first part of the sentence; and also takes out "Heavy." I think this should be good enough for consensus.--$%MarshalN20%$ (talk) 17:30, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Agree, this is the best version for now.. Dentren  |  Ta lk  06:01, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

I disagree.


 * Until now no reliable sources have been delivered for heavy British
 * Heavy is a weasel word
 * Heavy British is POV

--Keysanger (talk) 07:52, 4 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Keysanger, please note that Heavy has been removed in the last proposed version.
 * British capital investments drove development through the area, and most of the exploitation of the coastal region of the Atacama was conducted by British-Chilean companies. Dentren  |  Ta lk  11:16, 5 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm fine with British capital investments drove development through the area, and most of the exploitation of the coastal region of the Atacama was conducted by British-Chilean companies sources seem to corroborate it.
 * Likeminas (talk) 14:24, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Can you deliver references that confirm that "British capital leads"?. lead is spanish "conducir", that is the first one, the "leader". I found following information in Handbuch der Geschichte Lateinamerikas, in 3 Vol. by Walther L. Bernecker (Author), Raymond Th. Buve (Author), John R. Fisher (Author), Horst Pietschmann (Author) (amazon description)

(Chapter writen by Rory Miller, tranlation from Enflish to German of Andrea von Struve) In Vol. 2, page 649: 5. Peru, Bolivien, Chile 1830-1920

''Einen gewissen Anteil an diesem Aufschwung [1873] leistete auch die chilenische "Antofagasta Nitrate Company" (ANC) in Bolivien, an der auch die britische Firma "Antony Gibbs & sons" als Minderheitsaktionärin beteiligt war … Die ANC ist jedoch nicht der einzige Beispiel für Chiles Vordringen in die Wüste. 1870 waren die Chilenen auf neue Silberminen bei Caracoles in Bolivien gestoßen. Darüberhinaus investierten sie neben britischen und deutschen Kapitalgebern in der peruanischen Provinz Tarapaca. …''

Translation (by Keysanger):

page 649:

''Certain part of the boom [1873, of the nitrate extraction] was achived by the Chilean "Antofagasta Nitrate Company" (ANC) in Bolivia at that the British "Antony Gibbs & sons" took a holding as minority shareholder … The ANC was not the only case of Chilean advance into the desert. 1870 the Chileans found silbermines in Caracoles. Furthermore they [Chileans] invested together with British and German capital in the Peruvian Tarapaca''

That is Gibbs & Sons was only a minority holder in the big ANC. We are speaking about the time before the war. After the Chilean occupation of Tarapaca and Antofagasta, there is another history.

I insist. Can you deliver a reliable source that states "before the war British drove the investment"? I am not ready to write without a strong support because the theme is very controversial.

--Keysanger (talk) 19:16, 5 August 2009 (UTC)


 * You have a point there.. The sources I have seen refers primarily to British investment after the war in the 1880s, 1890s and so on, but it would be nice to see the shares in the financial participations in these mining companies before the war to claim that British drove development (which is still despite of this objection the most popular view regarding the conflict). does somebody have sources for the ownership shares of these companies before the war? Dentren  |  Ta lk  13:44, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

I am currently having some Internet problems and cannot currently provide a thoughtful reply to your argument, Keysanger. All I can say at this point is that the source that has already been provided does speak about British financial involvement prior to the War of the Pacific, and the other source provided by Dentren states that it was larger than Chilean, Peruvian, and Bolivian capital (individually). By mixing the information provided, which is the "most correct" thing to do in order to prevent plagiarism, the statement is adequately referenced (verifiable) and factual. I ask, why don't you seem so adamant at opposing any sort of British involvement in the war?--72.191.215.218 (talk) 17:05, 9 August 2009 (UTC)


 * who are you?
 * Can you help me and (re)write Dentren's source statement that it was larger than Chilean, Peruvian, and Bolivian capital?
 * There was a British financial involvement prior to the War of the Pacific. That is uncontested. Please read my contribution again:.
 * Einen gewissen Anteil an diesem Aufschwung [1873] leistete auch die chilenische "Antofagasta Nitrate Company" (ANC) in Bolivien, an der auch die britische Firma "Antony Gibbs & sons" als Minderheitsaktionärin beteiligt war … Die ANC ist jedoch nicht der einzige Beispiel für Chiles Vordringen in die Wüste. 1870 waren die Chilenen auf neue Silberminen bei Caracoles in Bolivien gestoßen. Darüberhinaus investierten sie neben britischen und deutschen Kapitalgebern in der peruanischen Provinz Tarapaca. …


 * Translation (by Keysanger, page 649): Certain part of the boom [1873, of the nitrate extraction] was achived by the Chilean "Antofagasta Nitrate Company" (ANC) in Bolivia at that the British "Antony Gibbs & sons" took a holding as minority shareholder … The ANC was not the only case of Chilean advance into the desert. 1870 the Chileans found silbermines in Caracoles. Furthermore they [Chileans] invested together with British and German capital in the Peruvian Tarapaca
 * But I am against POV or assertion without substance. At least in ANC the British capital was a minority shareholder. I repeat we need to know the magnitude of the British investment if we want to write about, and then avoid any POV-wording.


 * --Keysanger (talk) 19:25, 9 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I present you another reliable source about the national involvement in the nitrate industry in 1875 in Tarapaca. See Luis Vitale, "Interpretacion marxista de la historia de Chile", page 89-90:


 * La zona salitrera de Antofagasta comenzó a ser explotada por capitalistas chilenos. La inversión en Tarapacá de capitales peruanos, chilenos y, en menor medida, ingleses, alemanes e italianos, hicieron subir la producción de 10.594.026 quintales en 1865 a 26.795.625 quintales en 1875. En esta fecha, los capitalistas peruanos controlaban el 54% de las inversiones salitreras, los chilenos el 18% y los ingleses el 15%.


 * Guillermo Billinghurst, uno de los políticos peruanos de la época más conocedores del problema salitrero, sostenía que gran parte de los capitales 'ingleses' no eran inversiones provenientes de Londres, sino que fueron obtenidos a base de créditos concedidos por los bancos de Lima y Valparaíso a particulares de origen inglés. Billinghurst opinaba que los ingleses no jugaron un papel decisivo en la promoción de las primeras explotaciones salitreras: "no han sido capitalistas ingleses los que han imprimido a la industria salitrera la marcha inicial que le ha servido para adquirir su actual desarrollo... La compañía chilena de consignaciones invirtió en habilitaciones salitreras hasta cerca de $1.500.000. El Banco Edwards que hizo adelantos en este mismo negocio y cuatro o cinco casas de ese puerto comprometieron aquí más de $1.000.000". El Banco cle Valparaíso organizó once sociedades anónimas para la explotación del nitrato en Tarapacá: "el mercado financiero de Valparaíso se hallaba, por lo tanto, representado en la industria del salitre en Tarapacá, desde 1870 adelante en más de 6.500.000”


 * That is, not only in the "Antofagsta Nitrate Company" but also in Tarapaca the British were present only as minority shareholder. I repeat, in order to avoid mistakes, that we are reviewing the time before the war. After the Chilean occupation of Antofagasta and Tarapaca the figures changed. I havn't seen any reliable source that states "Heavy Britsh ... leads ...". Did you?


 * --Keysanger (talk) 19:48, 9 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I present you another reliable source about the national involvement in the nitrate industry in 1875 in Tarapaca. See Bruce W. Farcau, "The Ten Cents War", published 2000 by Praeger Publishers, 88 Post Road West, Westport, CT 06881, page 10:
 * It was largely Chilean capital, along with large influxes of funds from Great Britai, France and others europeans nations and the United States that supported this development, and it was this lack of involvement by either Peru or Bolivia in the region that would strenghten Chile's hand when the border dispute gained force in the second half of the century


 * It should be noted, as an important point, that some apparently contradictions in the figures could be based on different times and different meanings of the who is the owner, the stakeholder or the borrowing bank.


 * Furthermore we have to distinguish between persons, companies and states. If we talk about british capital, we mean mostly to british stakeholder and in no way to the British Empire. The British empire was neutral during the war, but one english contractor could be pro-Peru or pro-Chile.


 * I think I have delivered enough references for my proposal and a sentence with words like "heavy" or "leads" are unacceptable. If no one dissent, then I will introduce the changes.


 * --Keysanger (talk) 08:37, 10 August 2009 (UTC)


 * You need consensus before you can even consider your proposal acceptable. Silence is not consensus; and that is a Wikipedia rule. Please read the wiki manual for more information. I will post information regarding your discussion in some days. I am having internet problems as of now, hence why I have not been able to reply with as much consistency as before. I apologize my problems are affecting the discussion, but I am sure that out of courtesy (which I hope you have) you will not edit the article without consensus.--$%MarshalN20%$ (talk) 18:13, 10 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Nice work Keysanger the numbers and sources you have provided are just what was missing. Now the fact that Chilean capital and companies had a prominent role in the exploitation before does not necessarily dismiss the popular version of that British capitals were behind the war. The British interests in the zone is perhaps the single most mentioned reason for the war, and must be given a satisfactory place in the article. Dentren  |  Ta lk  22:52, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I still don't see any improvement from what Keysanger provides. This still seems to be the best sentence:

"British capital investments drove development through the area, and most of the exploitation of the coastal region of the Atacama was conducted by British-Chilean companies."

The "ANC" was a Chilean-British Company; that's the company that caused the "big problem" to begin with. The second source of keysanger mentions "largely Chilean capital." However, his first source states that Peru had about 53% of capital stock in the region. The original source (the one I provided) states that it was largely British capital that promoted development. Once again, that makes the sentence proposed by Dentren the best one.--$%MarshalN20%$ (talk) 16:00, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Can you support your sentence with reliable sources (please complete: name, page and relevant text)? I dont accept the "leads"

--Keysanger (talk) 13:13, 23 August 2009 (UTC)


 * READ! There is no more word "leads."--$%MarshalN20%$ (talk) 19:47, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

I think you are running out with arguments. I deleted it because the complete statement is unsupported. Likeminas reinserted it again. I restored the unbiased version. A new reinsert of the unsupported statement would escalete the situation. I would call a Cabal Mediation about the issue and demand directly the intervention of an admin to delete the unsupported sentences.

--Keysanger (talk) 10:36, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Issue Nr. 13
Current text of the "Land Campaign" :

''Once the naval superiority was achieved, the troops of the Chilean army initiated a series of military maneuvers in the Peruvian provinces of Tarapacá, Tacna, and Arica. The battles of Pisagua, Tacna, and Arica, resulted in Chilean victories that gave Chile control over the Atacama desert. Although the Battle of Tarapacá was an allied victory, it did not change the course of the events in favor of the allies because Bolivia retired from war after the Battle of Tacna,[citation needed] and Peru was left alone to face against Chile.''

That is all about the Peruvian and Bolivian lost of their main income?, thousand of deads, and the destruction of the Peruvian regular army?. The issue is also covered in the "Land Campaign" article, but the reader must be informed about the magnitude of the war to understand it. A brief history of the campaign is needed. "maneuvers" is the wrong word for the battles.

--Keysanger (talk) 09:45, 10 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I would like to read to believe that the lost of Tarapaca affected the military economy during the war. Neither Chile or Peru were able to fully exploit the nitrate deposits during the war and the heavy war mchines, cannons and ships were bought before the war. The transfer of control of tarapacac did not hinder Peru from raise a new army, nor allowed Chileans to adquide equipment they were not going to buy anyway. Lynch's expedition shows that Peru was still able to raise funds even after the loss of Tarapaca. Dentren  |  Ta lk  23:17, 10 August 2009 (UTC)


 * What's the proposed change? Likeminas (talk) 16:11, 11 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I still don't understand what Keysanger is trying to propose. The "Land Campaign" section does need better summarizing, more sources, and is thus essentially still in progress. I translated this section from the Spanish article. We should work on finding sources to certify the current statements in the section, and then work to consolidate it into a good summary. The "Land Campaign" article is where all of the "heavy" information should go (details, etc.).--$%MarshalN20%$ (talk) 16:14, 13 August 2009 (UTC)


 * In terms of Lynch's Expedition, that does not demonstrate Peru was able to raise funds. Lynch attacked Peruvian private property, not government property.--$%MarshalN20%$ (talk) 16:14, 13 August 2009 (UTC)


 * You might perhaps be right (for the moment)on the Lynch's Expedition, that does not demonstrate Peru was able to raise funds. we must later on examine this because sugar cane grown in the north were a big cash-crop industry an a source of wealth for private Peruvians and perhaps also for the state due to taxes. Why is this section called "land campaign" and not "land campaigns" in plural? As I understand it the Chilean campaigns were planed one after another and was a not "grand campaign" planned from the begging. "land campaign" gives the impression of Chileans sailing north with the occupation of Lima as goal. The usage of land campaign focuses on Chile and its campaigns which is partially good to do as Chile had the initiative for most of the war but it sends the Peruvian and Bolivian initiatives into further obscurity... Dentren  |  Ta lk  17:17, 13 August 2009 (UTC)


 * You may be right in the matter of taxes for the state. However, according to oral tradition (not sure if it's documented), the Peruvian aristocrats (Land-owners) gave President Prado a large amount of funds for him to buy armaments for the war (War had already broken out by this point). Allegedly, Prado took the money and left the country. Thus, when Lynch arrived to the northern regions of Peru, the land-owners there no longer had the large amounts of money that they previously had owned. Hence, when Lynch demanded irrational amounts of money from the landowners, at first many refused but eventually had to find a way to pay Lynch. The government of Peru really had little to nothing to do with that matter; all the government did at that point was make a decree where they outlawed payments to Chile from Peruvians (which is private property).--$%MarshalN20%$ (talk) 18:50, 13 August 2009 (UTC)


 * In terms of the "Land campaign" title of the section, that's just the standard name for the land plans and attacks for most "Wiki war articles." If you want to change the title, I don't think anybody here would oppose it.--$%MarshalN20%$ (talk) 18:50, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Of course the nitrate industry contnued to work inmediately after the occupation. The text has to:

--Keysanger (talk) 13:18, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
 * dates and places of the principal batles and landings.
 * amount of injured, deads, prisioners
 * territories occupied,
 * economic importance of the territories
 * state of the armies after the campaign (Peru lost his regular army after Tacna batte)

Issues 8, 10, and 22
I think all of these sections, the "Role of Argentina, the "Role of Great Britain," and the "Role of the United States" should all go into the World Perspectives section. These three long sections should be placed in the "World Perspectives" article, and then we should summarize these things into the "World Perspectives" section of the War of the Pacific article. They all played important roles in the war: The Argentine joining the Peru-Bolivia defensive alliance scared Chile, the British influence in the area is what helped spark the dispute and ended up being pro-Chile (added that the British ended up being the most benefited out of the conflict), the US influence in the area further made things worse by being pro-Peru and encouraging the Peruvians to continue the resistance. However, I'm open to hear other opinions (please remember to keep the discussion peacefully; and I say this because I know that this issue is quite a "troublesome" one).--$%MarshalN20%$ (talk) 01:24, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I believe the roles of the United States and Britain do not carry the same weight as Argentina’s role.

Both British and American involvement is limited to individuals providing each side with weaponry and money, not governments. As far as the article is concerned, the governments of Britain and the U.S. took an official stance of neutrality and were not involved in any kind of negotiations with either side, however and unlike Britain, the U.S. actively mediated on behalf of Peru.

Argentina’s government on the other hand was directly involved in negotiations with the alliance. Its legislative branch (Chamber of deputies, to be exact) secretly approved that country’s entrance into the alliance, in addition to a budget increase for military expenditures. So to put things in perspective, let me ask; were the British House of Commons or the U.S. House of Representatives into that level of involvement with any of the belligerent nations?

Now, I read somewhere that Britain was the most benefited, and while I’d like to see specific sources backing that up, we know as a fact that Chile -under the pressure of having to fight on a third country in the south- had to negotiate Argentina’s neutrality in exchange for substantial territories in Patagonia. Having said that, I’ll leave up to you to decide whom benefited the most from the war, but let us ask ourselves the following;

Did Britain or the U.S. obtain tangible gains (i.e. lands) from any of the belligerents as a direct consequence of the war?

From a geopolitical point of view, it is also incorrect to place Argentina –a country that shares borders with 2 of the 3 combatants- in the same category as the U.S. and Britain, each at least 5,000 km away from the conflict zone.

I would suggest going back to the older version re-name Argentina’s role as Argentina’s stance and put it somewhere within or after the Crisis section. As for Britain and the U.S., I would place them under World Perspectives.

As for summarizing, I think it can be tricky in terms of what to leave in and what to leave out. So in order to avoid further disputes, I suggest we come up with a consensual version drafted here on the talk page first. I’m not very good at summarizing, but I’m more than willing to help once an initial version is put forward.

By the way, this statement: between 1860 and 1870, Great Britain financed Chile a loan of £1,000 pounds  also needs a better source. Likeminas (talk) 15:25, 19 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I would agree that the particular statement needs a better source, but the source has a bibliography of about 9 sources. It is, by all means, reliable.


 * In response to your first question, the answer is yes for Britain. According to some sources, Britain provided Chile improved weaponry (and some even say clothing, such as boots) prior to the beginning of the war; Chile obviously had to pay for it, but that it was Great Britain who supplied the material is what makes the matter suspicious. Also, during the conflict Britain had around 7 battleships in the zone; which (in comparisson to the other "neutral" fleets in the area) was quite an exagerate amount of war ships. Now, what exactly does all of this mean? The answer is obvious, Great Britain was deeply involved in the protection of its economic interests in the zone (especially in Chile). At the end of the war, Great Britain had increased its saltpeter production to 55% (a huge jump from the 13.5% it originally owned). And that's without going into explicit detail on how Britain actively prevented Peru from buying war material in Europe. The role of Great Britain in the war is on the same level as that of Argentina. No, there was no actual "territorial gain" for Britain, but there was a major economic gain for Britain through Chile. In this matter, we can't argue that Territorial > Economic, or viceversa. Great Britain was just as involved in the conflict as Argentina, or maybe even more.


 * In terms of the United States, that nation also had economic interests in Peru, but the support it provided for Peru was minimal in comparisson to the involvement of Great Britain in Chile. Why was it minimal? Because the administration in the US changed through the years, thus constantly changing their stance towards Peru, and the United States was not willing to begin a diplomatic conflict with Britain. That's not to say that the United States wasn't involved in the matter. Their support for the Peruvian resistance is still an important part of the conflict.


 * Now, let's compare these (especially Britain) to Argentina. Argentina had a role with the alliance prior to the war, but that ended in nothing. Argentina was also a neutral country during the war (just as Britain and the US). Yet, the US and Britain had a role prior, during, and even after the war. The only active role Argentina had during the war was that of the Patagonia border dispute; and that problem was more towards Chile's own tactical mistakes rather than in direct fault to the War of the Pacific. There is no source that tells that Peru and/or Bolivia were telling Argentina to join them by that point; added that by 1880 Bolivia was no longer fighting the war. In fact, the United States could be blamed of this situation as they were the ones that kept promoting Peruvian resistance, thus prolonging the conflict (which ended up helping Argentina, as Chile kept pushing its manpower northward). Essentially, Argentina's and Chile's dispute was just that ("their" dispute, not Peru's or Bolivia's).


 * My proposal stands the same. Take all of those 3 sections into the World Perspectives section, and summarize them.--$%MarshalN20%$ (talk) 16:08, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I’m no so sure that source is reliable, despite having a bibliography; it looks like an amateurish website. So, I’d be careful when using it.

In any case, my first question was;

'were the British House of Commons or the U.S. House of Representatives into that level of involvement with any of the belligerent nations? Please, kindly explain and more importantly provide sources in which the British House of Commons approved a secret alliance with Chile.

Again, and –unless a source is provided proving otherwise- when we talk about British or American support for each side, we’re referring to individuals not the governments, which is not the case for Argentina. As for the statements presented to show British support in terms of weaponry, the relevant statement is backed by rather questionable sources;

Chilean soldiers were said to be equipped with English uniforms and rifles. Source 55: El expansionismo de Chile en el Cono Sur 1) is troublesome as it is used out of context –just a few sentences can be read- (which by the way is another of the issues listed) and is written by Humberto Cayoja Riart -a Bolivian writer- so at the very least that should be noted.

Source 56: Revista Argentina de relaciónes internacionales, Volume 6 Leads to a no preview Google book, therefore, it is not verifiable.

I could go on and list the American weaponry (torpedoes, $18,000 dollar war ships) ,actual combat examples (Stephen Chester launching a torpedo against a small Chilean ship from the Huascar) and the pro-Peruvian mediation attempts by the U.S., and claim American involvement was at the same level as that of Argentina and certainly greater to that of Britain, but I won't. American involvement –again, from individuals- is parallel to that of Britain.

Lastly, I agree that Britain made economic gains as a consequence of the war, but the article (although currently unsourced) talks about British capital leaving the area after the nitrate crisis. Argentina’s territorial gain, on the other hand, was perpetual. And the negotiations (see link above) from which they were obtained -neutrality for land- were a direct consequence of the war developments. The difference between these two is clear. One was a temporary economic gain from a distant nation, while the other was a perpetual gain from a bordering neighbor. Likeminas (talk) 17:13, 19 August 2009 (UTC)


 * For the sake of preventing controversy, I will attempt to seek a better source for that particular "amateurish" source by using the bibliography it provides. The book that leads to no preview has a search option. Like I mentioned before, WP:GF has to be used in these cases when a book is not readily available; the book exists, and if you use the search option I'm sure you will find the statement it supports.


 * It's a fact that the British House of Commons did not sign anything in relation to the matter, but neither did the United States Congress in terms of Peru. Yet, that does not take away the sourced facts that demonstrate how both nations were active in Peru and Chile. In terms of the Huascar launching a torpedo, the United States can't be blamed as it was done from a Peruvian war ship. However, as you mention it, you could provide more information to demonstrate the United States had as much of an "involvement" as did Argentina. And I can also provide enough sources to demonstrate that Great Britain had as much of an "involvement" as did Argentina.


 * The idea of "neutrality for land" is once again non-existent for Peru and Bolivia during the War of the Pacific. This was a problem solely of Chile and Argentina. Yes, the War of the Pacific did make the matter more tilted towards Argentina, but the point is that it is more of a side-effect of the war rather than a direct effect. Chile and Argentina had that as an ongoing dispute prior to the War of the Pacific, and nowadays the matter is still of much controversy.


 * Also, the matter of perpetual/non-perpetual is beside the point. Both Britain and Argentina had gains from the war. I don't know how the war is studied in Chile, but in Peru the studies on the War of the Pacific only deal with the war itself. The problems of Chile with Argentina, and the land Chile gave Argentina during the war, are also mentioned but it appears as a lesser situation.


 * Could you at least consider seeing these things in the World Perspectives section? I understand your point of view, but I don't know if you understand mine. If we can't come to a consensus, this will end up into another long and mediated discussion; and I am sure that we can avoid this if we can come to some sort of consensus.--$%MarshalN20%$ (talk) 21:51, 19 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't think it will be productive to engage in a back and forth at this point, so I'll just wait for other people's input.
 * Let's see what other people say, and we'll take from there. Likeminas (talk) 22:32, 19 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Sounds like a good idea.--$%MarshalN20%$ (talk) 01:14, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

I am ready to accept any text prevented:
 * it is supported by reliable sources
 * If a statement is contentious among reliable sources, we need to just report who views it one way, and who views it the other way, and refrain from asserting one or the other is reality. We can let the reader make up their own mind after presenting them the evidence in the most neutral way possible. (Gigs)

When we write the text we have to discern between States and Persons. If Marshal writes that Britain delivered weapons and uniforms to Chile, then Marshal has to write also who delivered the weapons and uniforms for Peru.

I want to show you another source, Handbuch der Geschichte Lateinamerikas, in 3 Vol. by Walther L. Bernecker (Author), Raymond Th. Buve (Author), John R. Fisher (Author), Horst Pietschmann (Author) (amazon description)

Rory Miller, tranlation from Enflish to German of Andrea von Struve In Vol. 2, page 652:

''Die Frage nach der Rolle, die ausländischen Interessen in diesem Konflikt spielten, wurden bereits während des Krieges aufgeworfen. Der US_amerikanische Außenminister James G. Blaine stellte 1882 fest: «Es ist eine vollkommene Fehleinschätzung vom einem Krieg zwischen Chile und Peru zu sprechen. Es handelt sich um einen Krieg zwischen Großbritannien und Peru, und Chile leistet nur Handlangerdienste.» Die Kritiker einer ausländischen Einmischung bezogen sich auf pro-chilenischer Aussagen britischer Kaufleute sowie auf Versuche seitens peruanischer Besitzer von Obligationen, die Lieferung von Kriegsausrüstung nach Peru zu verhindern und auf Verhandlungen mit Chile hinzuwirken. Sie verwiesen auf die wachsende britische Kontrolle über die Nitratindustrie, nachdem sie in chilenische Hände gefallen war. Die Klärung dieser Frage wird allerdings durc die Tatsache erschwert, dass Briten, Franzosen und die Vereignigten Staaten nicht gut auf einander zu sprechen waren,(was Blaines Aussagen in Frage stellt), und daß die Privatwirtschaft in allen drei Ländern, ebenso wie in Deutschland, an Lizenzen interessiert war. Obgleich der marxistische Historiker V.G.Kiernan [1955] aufgrund von Dokumenten des Auswärtigen Amtes zu dem Schluß kam, daß die britische Regierung keineswegs in den Krieg verwickelt war, schließt dieser Befund eine Beteiligung privatwirtschaftlicher Interessen nicht aus. Das Schlüßelunternehmen in diesem Bereich war die Firma Antony Gibbs &Sons, die in allen drei Länder über Eigentum verfügte, einschlißlich einer Minderheitsbeteiligung bei der ANC. Das Material aus dem Privatarchiv der Firma (das mittlererweile Wissenschatler in London zugänglich ist) legt den Schluß nahe, daß Antony Gibbs & Sons auf die Entwicklungen, die zum Krieg führten, nicht direkt eingewirkt, sondern lediglich reagiert hatte. Gleichwohl kamm man davon ausgehen, daß das Unternehmen auf die chilenische Regierung Druck ausgeübt hatte, um sie zu einem Protest gegen die bolivianischen Ausfuhrzölle zu bewegen. Sicherlich hatte die Firma auch nichts gegen die Kriegshetze der ANC Anfang 1879 einzuwenden. Nach Übernahme de Nitratlagerstätten in Tarapaca verschlechterten sich Gibbs' Beziehungen zur chilenischen Regierung.''

Translation by Keysanger:

''The question about the influence of foreign enterprises in the conflict was raised already during the war. The US Foreign Minister James G Blaine affirmed 1882: «It is a complete error to talk about a war between Peru and Chile. In reality it is a war between Peru and Great Britain and Chile is only subworker.» The critic of the foreign influence regarded pro-Chilean statements of British business people and also attempts bondholder Peruvian stocks in order to stop the deliver of materiel to Peru and to work towards peace negotiations with Chile. They refered to the increasing control over the nitrate industrie after the fall of tarapaca to Chile. The answer to this question is more difficult because Brits, Frenchs and the USA were feud with each other. (that questioned Blaines statement) and that the economy of the three countries, and also Germany, was interested an Licences for exploit nitrate. Despite the fact that the marxist historian V.G.Kiernan [1955], because of documents of the foreign office, concluded that the british government was in no way involved in the war, that doesn't exclude a participation of private enterprises. The relevant enterprise in this branche was Antony Gibbs &Sons, having stakes in the three countries, also a minority stakeholder by ANC (Antofagasta Nitrate Company). The documents from the private archiv of the enterprise (now free for scientific research in London) suggest that Antony Gibbs & Sons to the development that led to the war, more reacted that acted [original: nicht direkt eingewirkt, sondern lediglich reagiert hatte ]. Also we can assume that the enterprise applied prssure to the Ch. gov. in order to protest against the tax. Sure, the enterprise had nothing against the warmongering of the ANC at the beginning of 1879. After the occupation of Tarapaca the relations of the enterprise to the Ch.Gov. deteriorated''

So I expect a N E U T R A L  statement of wikipedians. Or we declare explicit that there are other sources not present in the article.

--Keysanger (talk) 13:19, 23 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Seriously, dude, calm down or shut up. I'm tired of your aggressiveness that just makes all of this unpleasant. If the source states that it was believe that Britain provided armament and uniforms to Chile, that is all that has to be included in the article; not "who" delivered the weapons. In terms of the source you provide: how nice. That doesn't change anything in reference to the other sources and the statements already in the article.--$%MarshalN20%$ (talk) 14:12, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Marshal wrote:

If the source states that it was believe that Britain provided armament and uniforms to Chile, that is all that has to be included in the article;

Gigs wrote:

''If a statement is contentious among reliable sources, we need to just report who views it one way, and who views it the other way, and refrain from asserting one or the other is reality. We can let the reader make up their own mind after presenting them the evidence in the most neutral way possible.''

I prefer Gigs statement. --Keysanger (talk) 12:12, 26 August 2009 (UTC)


 * What is the reliable source that claims otherwise? The statement is not contentious if there is no reliable source opposing it. Your opinion does not count as a reliable source.--$%MarshalN20%$ (talk) 19:50, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Issue Nr. 26
Text:


 * In South America, the War of the Pacific was not well-received.

Marshal, your sentence is undocumented. Can you find enough reliable sources to support such conclusive sentence. I think, Argentina got Patagonia in consequence of the war and Brasil looked henceforth to defeated immediate neighbors. I was never engaged with the issue but I will accept only serious, reliable and numerous sources. I will prefer to delete such peacockish assertion. Do you agree?

--Keysanger (talk) 11:57, 30 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I will not discuss this because you're not going in the order that was established. If we're going to "play this game" of the "bad list," you're going to have to stick to its rules.--$%MarshalN20%$ (talk) 14:56, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

What say the others Wikipedians? to delete?

--Keysanger (talk) 20:24, 30 July 2009 (UTC)


 * If no sources that support the claim are found and included, remove it. Selecciones de la Vida (talk) 15:37, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Removed --Keysanger (talk) 18:33, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Issue 28
Current text : However, the real issue is the fear of being dependent on Chile or Peru.

Can anyone give a reference for this statement?

--Keysanger (talk) 09:35, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

statements can and should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced. See WP:RS, WP:NRSNVNA Likeminas (talk) 16:16, 11 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Agree. The mediterranity of Bolivia is a big issue, there is surely significant historians, politicians and other people that have that opinion. For the sake of simplicity let us remove that unsourced statement, but I would like to see in the future more sourced information about this. Althought Bolivia's military performance war poor the long term consequences that arose from the war, makes it nessesary to expand these consequence sections. Dentren |  Ta lk  16:23, 12 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I didn't write that statement, but it seems true. However, since it lacks sources and you challenge it, WP rules says it can and should be removed.--$%MarshalN20%$ (talk) 16:03, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Issue nr 29
I think we have waited a reasonable amount of time for someone to provided sources, if they wanted to.

Since July, the statements remain unsourced, as as per WP:V and WP:NRSNVNA removing unreferenced content is not controvertial and doesn't need to be discussed. I will remove those statements accordingly. However, if someone disagrees with the removal please feel free to revert me and re-insert the statements -provided they're properly sourced-. Likeminas (talk) 19:02, 27 August 2009 (UTC)


 * It's high time. --Keysanger (talk) 17:59, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Most of the challenged statements have sources. Please do not remove the "challenged" statements if they are sourced. Feel free to delete information that is challenged, but is not properly sourced. Also, the "Land Campaign" section of the article is largely unsourced, but that is because I translated the section from the Spanish Wikipedia. Instead of deleting that section, I suggest that you look for sources to verify the statements. Later, we can work on summarizing that section.--$%MarshalN20%$ (talk) 18:54, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I just double-checked and I deleted only unsourced statements. Which challenged statements are you refering to?


 * Likeminas (talk) 00:10, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Issue nr 33
Hello. Arafael (talk) 13:33, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
 * About new map. Only Chile has black border. Puna de Atacama area is less than
 * Let's go with Quiroga, navy, census, and other incidents.
 * Bolivia did not broke the 1874 Boundary Treaty. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arafael (talk • contribs) 21:14, 14 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes. I put it red because the Border Peru-Bolivia and Bolivia-Argentina weren't changed as a direct consequence of the war.
 * It is arduous to copy the same borders because there are no references (towns, mountains) to be fixed. You corrected once a map. SVG is easier as png to change!

--Keysanger (talk) 21:20, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

P.S.: let the "References" at last.


 * I just noticed that too. There really is no good reason as to why the borders Peru-Bolivia and Bolivia-Argentina should be red. The black borders should be enough; the map's key has the black border as the borders after the war (which is still the case with the Peru-Bolivia and Bolivia-Argentina borders).
 * If the Puna de Atacama is larger, it should be made larger.
 * Arafael, could you elaborate on how Bolivia didn't break the 1874 Boundary Treaty?--//&#91;*&#93;MarshalN20&#91;*&#93;\\ (talk) 00:49, 15 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Map
 * See here Puna de Atacama before war is larger than this map
 * 23th parallel lacks also. It is important because it's in 1874 treaty.
 * All countries should have same borders. See here
 * Tax
 * In 1873 "Antofagasta Nitrate & Railway Company" started to sign a contract with Bolivia. It was not approved by bolivian congress. It was not a valid contract yet.
 * In 1874 was the treaty between Chile and Bolivia. "Antofagasta Nitrate & Railway Company" did not have a valid contract with Bolivia yet.
 * In 1878 bolivian congress approved the contract. 10 cents tax only affects to "Antofagasta Nitrate & Railway Company", not all chilean companies.
 * Arafael (talk) 15:04, 15 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I see. So yes, the Puna de Atacama is larger than the one currently pictured. It's necessary to improve this.
 * I don't think the 23th parallel is necessary to be included in the picture. It would be a good addition, but not completely necessary.
 * Yes. I agree that all countries should have the same colored borders.
 * Regarding the tax, your statements seem logical. Can you provide sources that back your statements?--//&#91;*&#93;MarshalN20&#91;*&#93;\\ (talk) 16:38, 15 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Bolivian source:
 * Read page 30: Embajador Jorge Gumucio Granier. La Paz, Bolivia. Revista Lazos Nro. 3
 * In 1878, Bolivian Minister, Serapio Reyes Ortiz, told Alejandro Fierro that the grant in 1873 for the "Antofagasta Nitrate & Railway Company" was not perfected in accordance with Bolivian law and therefore could not benefit from the Treaty of 1874.
 * Chilean source:
 * Read pages 22 and 23: Los empresarios, la politica y la Guerra del Pacifico. Luis Ortega. Santiago de Chile. 1984
 * In 1878, Chilean senator Lorenzo Claro declares : "the law of February 14, 1878 does not violate the treaty of August 6, 1874, and that Bolivia has been just right to make".
 * Alejandro Fierro, was Chilean Foreign Minister and also shareholder from "Antofagasta Nitrate & Railway Company".
 * Arafael (talk) 19:46, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Arafael (talk) 19:46, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

I think you have made your point effectively Arafael. Those things you mention should be implemented into the article.--//&#91;*&#93;MarshalN20&#91;*&#93;\\ (talk) 23:27, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Last call: References
Time is runnig out to amend incomplete references or to write references for unsupported sentences. Every unsourced controversial sentence has to be deleted.

--Keysanger (talk) 14:16, 23 August 2009 (UTC)


 * What are you rambling on about now?--$%MarshalN20%$ (talk) 14:19, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Please, take care to keep "references" at the bottom of the page --Keysanger (talk) 19:31, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

This article cannot be a Chilean-only version of he War
Greetings, I'll made several corrections in this article, one about the looting of the Peruvian National Library, quoted as an act of "confiscation", the Chilean state do not have any right to "confiscate" any cultural artifact from the Peruvian nation, that "right" is not stated or mentioned in any treaty or convention about the behavior of the nations at war from that time, therefore, it was an loot, a robbery allowed by the Chilean government against the Peruvian nation. Second, the destruction of the towns of San Juan, Miraflores, Chorrillos and Barranco was mostly executed by Chilean troops, that is a FACT proved by many sources, the Peruvian soldiers cannot destroy the towns than hours before they defended, and many of them were captured and executed in the streets by the Chilean troops, who not only attack and rape the Peruvian citizens, but also many foreigners than lived in the towns, and example of this is the slaughter of an entire Italian firefighters company in Chorrillos, accused by the Chileans to colaborate with the Peruvian troops. Wikipedia cannot be used as a place to hide or try to change this facts in the History of both nations, I´ll also saw than this article is mainly controlled by Chilean editors, and uses many Chilean sources. Not anymore. The article must be an accurated and neutral review of the facts of the War of the Pacific, not a place of diffusion of this distorted and one-side version of this war. Greetings.--Cloudaoc (talk) 04:13, 25 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Cloudaoc, I’ve been around this article long enough to realize the potential futility in debating these issues with an impassioned individual whose personal dislike for Chile –( Chilean troops who do not show respect for anything )- or other possible nationalistic feelings  leads them to embark on a near vendetta – and who will merely toss aside all contrary evidence that sways from their accepted or experienced narrative views.


 * What you call corrections (nevertheless, this books represents only a fraction of the stoled books during the War, and not included the books held in private collections) is merely a poorly written insertion of original research.


 * This article (as it currently stands) is rather contentious. So please do not add unsourced material. It will (and should) just get deleted right away as per WP:V and WP:OR.


 * I will also urge you to take a look at this talk page. We’ve discussed a wide array of topics. Right now we’re having a section where we’re listing items we think should be further discussed. So if you see something you disagree with, you might as well list it there.
 * I will also remind you even that if some sources are Chilean, they’re not simply discarded based on that. We’ve seen in the recent past the usage of ultranationalistic websites to reference certain statements, and while I agree that those sources should be avoided for obvious reasons, I've not seen such attempts from the Chilean historiography.
 * Sometimes you might see a source containing a statement of opinion. But even then, they can still be used, we would just need to give the appropriate attribution to the sentence(ie; According to Chilean historian X……. or In the view of Scholar X……..).


 * I will revert your last edit for the above mentioned reasons. Please feel free add a reliable source, tag the statement or list it on the discussion topics section above. I’m willing to improve this article in a civilized and amicable manner.Likeminas (talk) 15:19, 25 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Likeminas, if something is written that doesen`t means than it is true, do you understand that? You have that sources, but that are not the only sources about that issues, and some of them are not only partial, but also FALSE, and that is reflected in some lines, like the "confiscation" of the Peruvian books, that phrase cannot be taken seriously, is an mediocre justification for the usurpation of the Peruvian cultural deeds. I'll also want to improve this article in a civilizated and amicable manner, but I´m not permit than false statements like the destruction of the towns of Chorrillos was commited by Peruvian soldiers and aseverations like the "confiscation" of the books, because both lines attemp against the truth, and dozens of sources confirms it. Because they are not mentioned in the article doesen't means it doesen't exists. I`ll have that sources, but I have little time to begin adding them to the article, I¡ll hope you understand and trust in my intentions of keep this article the must neutral and reliable as posible. I`ll undo your modifications again and I`ll hope than you keep it in that state. Greetings.--Cloudaoc (talk) 16:42, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

I’m not here to make value judgments, and if you want to be in a productive and comfortable editing environment I suggest you refrain from doing so.

If you think or claim that something that is currently sourced is false then you need to provide another source that contradicts it or at least casts doubt on it. As you probably know by now, Wikipepdia relies heavily on verifiability, not word of mouth.

As for the usage of the word confiscate I would first point towards WP:AVOID and second I would give the definition of the word confiscate, which is (transitive) To take possession of by force or authority; expropriate.

In any case, no you won’t leave unsourced statements in the article. Please see WP:V and WP:OR on why not. In addition, please visit the WP:3RR, you’re very close to violating that policy, thus getting blocked. Likeminas (talk) 16:54, 25 August 2009 (UTC)


 * And now, you accuse me of vandalism, but curiosly, the recent article about the occupation of Lima than you made sustains some of my edits, your own source about the return of the looted books to the National Librery says specifically than the amount of retuned books its only a fraction of the stoled items, that's why I`m saying in this article, but you edited because its unsourced, and the mentioned source (a BBC news) uses the correct word for the extraction of the books: LOOTED, stealed, taken without any justification or legal support. But you conveniently omitted that phrase and used the Chilean-official word for that event: "CONFISCATED". Is that a serious and responsable behavior of an neutral Wikipedian editor? And you accused me of vandalism? There is some quotes from your own source:


 * Chile returns looted Peru books - BBC News


 * "...The soldiers pillaged the library after capturing the Peruvian capital, Lima, in 1881, during the War of the Pacific."


 * And other similar phrase few lines above:


 * "...Relations have been strained ever since the books - 2,500kg (5,500 lbs) of them - were stolen by Chilean soldiers occupying Peru's capital more than 120 years ago."


 * But you in your article used exactly the same phrase thanI edit in this article:


 * "As war booty, Chile confiscated the contents of the Peruvian National Library in Lima"


 * Not looted, not stoled, as the source states, but the convenient and also official Chilean-word for this: "Confiscated". And you acussed me to put false information in the Wikipedia, it is coherent? it is serious? I´m not altering the statements of the sources, you did that, not me. And this behavior is than you called a "civilizated and amicable manner" cutting and eliminating the edits tahn are not aligned with your version of the war? Greetings--Cloudaoc (talk) 17:14, 25 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Cloudaoc I would appreciate it if you keep the discussion on a civil level. ::::It's important that we focus on discussing content and not the editor.
 * Now, in regards to your complaint.
 * Yes, I have added substantial info into the article, but the (Chilean?) word confiscated was not added by me. So for future reference, please, don't assume that everything that might seem Chilean POV was written by me. That would be a mistake.
 * In any case, I don't have a problem with changing it for another word (as long as it is not weasel) if supported by the sources.
 * What I do have a problem with, is the insertion of unsourced material. It will simply be not tolerated, especially in a contentious article like this one.
 * As I said before, we have a list of "issues" that need to be addressed. I invite you to list whatever you think is POV, controversial, questionable or simply needs to be discussed in detail. Doing it that way, will help us sort things out in more organized manner. Likeminas (talk) 20:10, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Issue nr 37
Here I bring a letter from the Director of the National Library at the time of the ocuppation, Colonel Manuel de Odriosola, who send a letter to the Chilean Government protesting by the systematic looting of the institution on his charge, the letter, dated March 10, 1881 shows how the Chilean high officers were aware of the looting and even promoted it. Here is the letter:

The Director of the National Library indicates than the collection at the time of the invasion includes at least 50000 books and 800 manuscripts, this numbers must be included in the article to show how little is the fraction of the books returned by the Chilean government, and how much is still in illegal possession by the Chilean nation.

You need more proofs Likeminas? Are you still accusing me of putting false and unsourced information in the Wikipedia? Are you still interested in block my Wikipedia account?. Also, the PDF document which contains the letter, quotes the page 148, Tome III of the book Narración histórica de la guerra de Chile contra el Perú y Bolivia written by Mariano Felipe Paz Soldan in 1884, narrates the next episode:

"... desde ese momento principió el saqueo descarado de ese sagrado depósito, se cargaban carros, con toda clase de libros, que se llevaban a casa de los chilenos y alli, después de escoger lo que les convenia, el resto lo vendían en el mercado, al precio de seis centavos libra, para envolver especias y cosas por el estilo."

This paragraph is not only a proof of the looting, but also shows the destruction and alienation of the books of the National Library by Chilean hands, this facts must be part of any article who talks about the Chilean occupation of Lima. You need more Likeminas?, are you still believing than the word "confiscated" is enough to describe the criminal acts of the Chilean Army against the cultural patrimony of the Peruvian Nation? War booty you say? Since when the cultural capitol of a nation is part of the definition of war-booty? The letter of Odriosola describes with clarity the definition of war booty of that time, which includes only the weapons and other items used in warfare. Are you still sustaining your version of the facts Likeminas? Are you still going to blockeade my account? I'll have much more about many others "facts" of this article. This is just the beginning. Greetings.--Cloudaoc (talk) 19:49, 25 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I don’t understand why you seem to be taking this discussion on a personal level.


 * I never disputed that patrimony was taken from the national library of Peru.
 * I see, however, that you want to use strong (condemning) language on the acts of the Chilean army. Now I would support your right to hold these views personally, but such language would not be an appropriate for a neutral encyclopedia article. See WP:AVOID on why.


 * In any case, would you agree to changing “confiscated” to “plundered”?
 * If so, I would have no objection if you changed it. Likeminas (talk) 20:30, 25 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Strong, comdemning language you say? I'll used that words because they describes with clarity the facts, the language is correct, because if you were right, the articles about the atrocities commited by the German Army in the WWII do no include titles like this: Atrocities during the Invasion of Poland in the article about the War crimes of the Wehrmacht, why the German editors are not protesting against this use of "condemning words" on this important article? Because the know than that words are correct, and above all: TRUE. This is the same case, the Chilean Army committed CRIMES of "lesa-civilización" against the Peruvian nation, that's are FACTS, and you know it, why do you want to keep this words out of he article? You don't want than the readers associated the word "atrocities" with the Chilean Army? That's a neutral POV, softening the words used in the sections of the article who shows the acts of the Chilean troops during the war? Again, I'll strongly question YOUR neutrality in the editions of this article, because the sources are not the only problem, but also the editors who sustains this version of the facts based only in sources aligned with their own believes. Greetings.


 * P.D.- Are you going to blocking my account for saying this?--Cloudaoc (talk) 07:53, 27 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Before we engage in any constructive discussion here, you need to do two things. First and foremost you need to read WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA. And lastly read WP:AVOID.
 * PS: shame on your Nazi analogy.Likeminas (talk) 15:26, 27 August 2009 (UTC)


 * And now and finally, you are hiding behind the Wikipedia policies, because you are uncapable to deny or refute this new evidence, the Wikipedia policy is your only and last defence? Arguments ad-hominem, because you are uncapable of sustain the questionated lines or the sources used by them? That's all? You are using the Wikipedia policy to block any attemp of correction, seeking for an endless discussion meanwhile the Chilean POV and sources are kept in the article, this I'll repeat is not acceptable, I'll read the previous issues an see how the editions made by Peruvians are systematically discarded mainly using arguments ad-hominem and Wikipedia policies, and you don´t need to recommend me to read such policies, I'll know them perfectly, and its seems than you need to read again the Wikipedia policies, because you are evading and ignoring it with great talent, if I can say that. you thing than I´m aggresive? I'm sorry, but I`m not goint to use euphemisms with you or in this article, showing the facts with clearity and neutrality are my only goals, and this article is obviously partial and unreliable.


 * If you don`t have any argument to deny this new evidence, I'll proceed to edit the article according with the new sources. Greetings.


 * P.D.- Very funny your link about the nazi analogy, but useless... I have a dozen of examples of this point, but I used this because it was the first than I remembered --Cloudaoc (talk) 17:38, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

You don’t like Wikipedia’s policies? Then, fight to change them. But as long as they are in place, you will have to follow them. Wether you like them or not. I previously said that if there are contracting sources, then, a solution would have to be worked out to present them both. And no, you won’t change the article according to your source and leave out the others. Doing so, would violate WP:NPOV, WP:WEIGHT and WP:CONS.

So, in view of your rather nasty and uncivilized attitude (despite numerous amicable attempts to pick up the level of the discussion) I have no interest in expanding this discussion with you. I will, however, watch the article for unilateral changes, and if appropriate report them to an administrator. Likeminas (talk) 18:18, 27 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Nasty an uncivilizated attitude? What do you expect, than I agree to every word than you say? In which moment I`ll act in such way? Again, you're using arguments ad-hominem, and I`m not against the Wikipedia policies, which I'll follow adn respect, but I'm against the use than you made of them, blocking any attemp of edition who do not allign with your believes.


 * Present both sources would be acceptable if the title of the article was "War of the Pacific view in the countries at war", or something like that, in which explains how the war is perceived in the countries involved, that's an analysis with conclusions, and such article can be very useful to show the differents perceptions about the war in the time of the events and today, but the present article is not about interpretations of the facts in that war, but the facts of the war itself, with NONE POV, not BOTH, an article who only tells what happen, and why happen, etc, etc. Not opinions or conclusions made for experts or for us, and that's all. Both points of view, both versions? No, only the facts. And you again are trying to threaten me with accusing my "behavior" to the administrator, please! DO IT! I`ll have a couple of things to say about you as well. Greetings.--Cloudaoc (talk) 20:07, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

In no place of the document is the word "systematically", someone put it in the article because of unknown reasons and wrote a POV sentence. --Keysanger (talk) 18:10, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

As stated by Diego Barros Arana in page 100 of his oeuvre "Historia de la Guerra del Pacifico", Vol II, page 99-100 the article 45 of INSTRUCTIONS FOR THE GOVERNMENT OF ARMIES OF THE UNITED STATES IN THE FIELD, aka Lieber Code, Prepared by Francis Lieber, promulgated as General Orders No. 100 by President Lincoln, 24 April 1863 and used by Chile as Law of War (See Diego Barros Arana "Historia de la Guerra del Pacifico", Vol I, page 115) defined that:


 * Art. 45.


 * All captures and booty belong, according to the modern law of war, primarily to the government of the captor.
 * Prize money, whether on sea or land, can now only be claimed under local law.

Of course, today 2009, this law is right strange for us, but was used in the Civil war of the United States, 1864, and the Lieber code was promulgated as law of war by the government of President Pinto in 1879. That has to be mentionated in this context. Many readers ignore that the law of war is relatively new (since ca. 1850) and has impoved over the intervening years.

--Keysanger (talk) 18:48, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

I wrote following contribution to the article, but someone deleted it because of unknown reasons:

''At that time there was no binding international law between both countries about this issue. 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.

Because of the Peruvians claims about the books, the paragraph has to be added to the text. Of course also the Peruvian and Bolivian law of war should be added.

--Keysanger (talk) 19:01, 28 August 2009 (UTC)


 * (un-indented) - I think it’s undeniable that most (if not all) of the looting in Peru was done by Chilean forces. I was checking Google books and most sources seem to agree on that. So, in terms of weight that view should be certainly the dominant one.


 * Nonetheless, there’s another source (from the Chilean historiography) that claims that at least some of the looting was done by Peruvians also. But, given that for the most part Villalobos account are statements of opinion, we should give the appropriate attribution in the text, in order to differentiate opinion from fact.


 * Here’s a proposal for the disputed sentence (bold text by me);


 * Delete the sentence:


 * After the battle there were fires and sackings by demoralized Peruvian soldiers in the towns of Chorrillos and Barranco


 * Reword and insert claim with attribution:


 * ''Nevertheless, while the occupation in Lima lasted, Chilean troops systematically[citations needed] pillaged Peruvian public buildings, turned the old University of San Marcos into a barracks, raided medical schools and other institutions of education, and stole a series of monuments and artwork that had adorned the city.[100] As war booty, Chile ‘plundered’ the contents of the National Library of Peru in Lima and transported thousands of books (including many centuries-old original Spanish, Peruvian, and Colonial volumes) to Santiago de Chile, along with much capital stock.[citation needed] It took 3,000 wagons to take the plunder back to Chile that hadn't already been taken by sea.[100]However, In the view of Chilean historian Sergio Villalobos some of the looting was also carried out by Peruvians who saw under the chaos of the occupation an opportunity to acquire and sell valuable objects. On the other hand, the Peruvian historiography has no such accounts and reaffirms that the looting was done solely by Chilean forces.


 * Move the following sentence to the section Aftermath: Chile


 * In November 2007 3,778 books were returned to the National Library of Peru.[101]


 * Please let me know what you guys think. Likeminas (talk) 00:50, 29 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Good, I'll agree mostly, except for two lines, the first is this one:


 * "As war booty, Chile ‘plundered’ the contents of the National Library of Peru"


 * The cultural heritage is not included in the concept of war-booty of that time and even today, and this is supported by the letter of Odriosola to the Chilean Government, war booty is about any item which can be used in warfare, by example, artillery, rifles and of course, warships, the best examples of this are the Huascar and the Pilcomayo both captured in combat, and the Grieve light artillery captured in San Juan and Miraflores. The word "plundered" should not be placed between apostrophes, and I`still think than is too soft, an euphemism, but OK, its better than the previous word.


 * The second is than we must show the dimension of the Peruvian collection of books at the time of the war, its an important fact which must be included in the article. Odriosola in his letter mentions the amount of books (around 50000). Greetings. --Cloudaoc (talk) 04:17, 29 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree with the proposal of Likeminas. Nonetheless, Cloudaoc has a point, per Wiki's War Booty article, and the definition of the term, the taking of books is not war booty: it is plunder. Also, plunder should not be in apostrophes. I also agree that the amounts should be mentioned, but it should be done in a manner that makes the article flow correctly. For instance: "Chile transported thousands of books out of the national library, which held about [amount] books, to Santiago..."--$%MarshalN20%$ (talk) 12:15, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I suggest we remove war booty for the time being. In regards to plunder it was a typo, I meant to put it in bold as it was a substitution for the word confiscate.


 * As for the number of books, let's find some sources, place them here so they can be evaluated for accuracy and later work out another sentence. Other than that, it seems to me we're in agreement. Likeminas (talk) 16:02, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi Likeminas, please let me now the references (title, author, year of edition, page, and relevant text) for your proposal.

I read the given reference Enc. Brit [100], but couldn't find such data.

Please use this thread to discuss the books issue.

--Keysanger (talk) 15:42, 29 August 2009 (UTC)


 * That was a copy and paste, look at the current sources posted in the article. They're the same. Likeminas (talk) 16:02, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

copy and paste or not, we NEED reliable references for:


 * sistematic
 * pillaged Peruvian public buildings,
 * turned the old University of San Marcos into a barracks,
 * raided medical schools and other institutions of education, and
 * stole a series of monuments and artwork that had adorned the city.

I deleted the given reference to the Enc Brit because it was not verificable. EB was first published between 1768 and 1771 and since in different versions and with thousand of thousand of pages and languages.

The references have to contain name of the book (url), author, year of edition, page nr and relevant text. I don't refuse to write about the library of lima, of course there is the documented restitution of the books, but we want to finish the habit to write "from heart". We write a encyclopaedia, not a polemic pamphlet.

Another point to resolve is the WP:Due weight. It is ridiculous that "the Chilean army initiated a series of military maneuvers in the Peruvian provinces of Tarapacá, Tacna, and Arica. The battles of Pisagua, Tacna, and Arica, resulted in Chilean victories that gave Chile control over the Atacama desert" is all about the land campaign in the main article and the steal of books fill a full paragraph. This is valid also for the issue 35 (destruction of Chorrillos). Both events are to be dealt in proportion of their importance in the war and to the lenght of the article.

In order to lessen the waste of time (discussions about reliability of the source, page nr, relevant text, relation with the topic, etc.), I beg you to deliver good reliable and accesible references, with all data (I repeat: name of the book and/or url, author, year of edition, page number and relevant text). Be sure that your reference absolutly supports the sentence you are propousing and it isn't a vage notice about an similar or near event but not the event self.

It seems pedantic, but it is necessary to impede POV and a bad documented article.

--Keysanger (talk) 17:21, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Issue nr 35
The sources are very important, but not all the sources are adequate to be used as reference for a neutral point-of-view article, another example of this is the claim than was the Peruvian troops, not the Chilean ones, which destroyed the towns outside Lima. This is one of the most aberrant lines in the present article, because is not only illogical, but also false. This is a facsimil-copy of the last Peruvian newspaper published in Lima one day after the battle of Chorrillos, in January 14, 1881, is part of the collections of documents published in Tome V of the book "Guerra del Pacifico - Recopilacion completa de todos los documentos oficiales, correspondencias i demas publicaciones referentes a la guerra" published in Valparaiso in 1888 by Pascual Ahumada Romero, who narrates the destruction of the towns by the Chilean troops without any significative attemp of his officers to stop it:

Last newspaper published in Lima - January 14, 1881

I'm sure Likeminas than you can read in spanish as well than me, therefore, you can't deny the relevance and importance of this source, I`ll hope than you made the necessary corrections to improve this article with this new evidence. Greetings.--Cloudaoc (talk) 20:12, 25 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I will take a look at that source. If it contradicts another one, then, we would have to work out a way to present both of them in the article.
 * I don't know if you have been reading my posts, but we have a list of "issues", and while it is not required -as a courtesy to your fellow editors- it would be nice if you placed these issues there.
 * It would also help us address each point in a orderly manner. Thanks. Likeminas (talk) 20:37, 25 August 2009 (UTC)


 * This has already been listed on issue#35. Likeminas (talk) 21:05, 25 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Present both of them? Sorry, but that is unacceptable and illogical, the last newspaper proves with clarity than was the Chilean troops had the responsability of the destrucction of the Limean towns, the evidence is CLEAR and is supported by others, like the intervention of the French Admiral Du-Petit Thouars, who warned to the General Baquedano than if the Chilean Army repeats the atrocities committed in the mentioned towns in the Peruvian capitol, the neutral fleet will open fire against the vessels of the Chilean Navy. Therefore, if your version of the facts sustained by that questionable sources says the contrary, than was the Peruvian, not the Chilean troops, the aggressors against the neutral citizens who live in the towns, why Petit-Thouars threatened Baquedano with the destruction of the Chilean ships? In fact, the book than is mentioned as a source, CHILE Y PERÚ, LA HISTORIA QUE NOS UNE Y NOS SEPARA 1535-1883 written by Sergio Villalobos, is book heavily questionated even by the own Chileans, for its excessive nationalism and contempt against Peru and Bolivia, an example is this review:


 * CHILE Y PERÚ, LA HISTORIA QUE NOS UNE Y NOS SEPARA 1535-1883, de Sergio Villalobos - Una sonrisa


 * But you Likeminas wants to put this questioned and biased source with a direct and primary source of facts in debate, as is the last Peruvian newspaper published in Lima. This is serious? Or are you systematically discarding any soutce which contradicts the facts aligned with the official Chilean-version of the war? And also, the lines about this issue in the article are different than the facts narrated in the book, who states (erroneously) than was BOTH, Chilean and Peruvian (again, this latter is FALSE) the destroyers of the towns. Your "solution" is not acceptable. Greetings.--Cloudaoc (talk) 07:24, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

If by bias you mean, having a Chilean POV, then that’s OK. Wikipedia doesn’t require neutrality from the source, but instead from its editors and how they present the material in the article. Please read WP:NPOV.

If you look at the references currently listed in the article, we have accounts from Peru, Bolivia and Chile. Obviously, not all will have the same analysis and conclusion of a historical event.

On many topics, there are different interpretive schools which use the same documents and facts but use different frameworks and come to different conclusions

In other words, if there are opposing views to a matter, Wikipedia’s neutrality policy requires that we present accordingly those views. Having said, that, [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Statements_of_opinion Some sources may be considered reliable for statements as to their author's opinion, but not for statements of fact. A prime example of this are Op-ed columns that are published in mainstream newspapers. When discussing what is said in such sources, it is important to directly attribute the material to its author, and to do so in the main text of the Wikipedia article so readers know that we are discussing someone's opinion.] Please inform yourself with how Wikipedia works, since these policies are(at least) a pre-requirement to any content dispute or debate. And also, keep it cool. I believe I haven’t adopted an aggressive tone towards you. So please, reciprocate.

It will be nicer for all of us. Likeminas (talk) 15:49, 27 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Cloudac, do you mean earnestly that the last newspaper is neutral evidence?.
 * the last newspaper proves with clarity than was the Chilean troops had the responsability of the destrucction of the Limean towns
 * The same newspaper, at the same page, says:
 * Antes la muerte que la deshonra/este debe ser nuestro unico credo


 * (Bold by Keysanger)


 * Do you think that someone saying that is interested in the truth?. They, the Peruvian government and oligarchy were looking death in the eye. Every government or officer of any army would in such circumtances lie pack of lies to achieve his aims.


 * This source states only that the newspaper TOLD his readership that the Chileans were ad portas and that the Government wanted to stop them.


 * --Keysanger (talk) 19:26, 28 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Are you qualified, and also have evidence to sustain than this newspaper is lying? Or are you using only your "logic"? You are sustaining your point with your personal interpretation of the newspaper, and that's not enough to discard it, because you lack the necessary skills to judge such a question on the source. Are you an historian? Have you published books about this issue? If you don't (obviously) you can't discard this source and denied their statements. This is a primary source of information, collected by many eyewitness just hours after the battle and when the towns are still on fire, but you claim than all is false because you think than is false. The source is not neutral, that's true, but is supported by many neutral sources, compilated in many other books. Your argument against this source is a fallacy. Greetings --Cloudaoc (talk) 19:30, 29 August 2009 (UTC)


 * This book is a better source: Read pages 163 and 164. It explains that Chilean Admiral Riveros ordered the destruction of Chorrillos. Also, it states that Chilean troops participated in the destruction of Chorrillos, and brings forth the question as to whether it was upon orders of the Chilean officers or due to a lack of prevention by the Chilean officers. However, it does support the idea that Chilean troops essentially destroyed the city; and also makes mention of the destructions of Ancon and Chancal (also done by Chilean troops, according to this source). Based upon this, and with the other source, I think a better statement would be to say that both demoralized Peruvian soldiers and Chilean troops pillaged and destroyed the cities/towns. Also, it would be important to mention that it is unknown as to whether it was done upon order of Chilean officers or not (unless other sources can be brought forth supporting one side more than the other).--$%MarshalN20%$ (talk) 22:38, 28 August 2009 (UTC)


 * No Marshall, the "and" is out of question, the only source than affirms this (and barely, without any further explanation) is the books of Villalobos, and this source its being questionated and is not enough to establish than the pillagers was Peruvians and Chileans in the same proportion, that's the implication of using the logic operator and, there is not substantial evidence of such acts. Greetings.--Cloudaoc (talk) 01:44, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi Marshal, please let me now the relevant text that you think support the sentence. --Keysanger (talk) 15:44, 29 August 2009 (UTC)


 * The fragments of the book Comisión de reclamaciones entre Chile i los Estados Unidos available on books.google.com and cited by Marshal, which are relevant to this issue are the next:


 * Page 143
 * "'Se recibieron noticias del Coronel Iglesias i de otras fuentes acerca de las atrocidades cometidas por el Ejercito Chileno en Chorrilos"


 * Page 163
 * "'La verdadera razon para destruir la propiedad del reclamante i otras propiedades en Chorrillos, parece exponerlas el propio comandante del Ejercito Chileno, cuando en su informe oficial dice lo siguiente:'"


 * Page 165
 * "'..pues la batalla de Miraflores, es una prueba mas de que si hubiera tratado de dominarlas, en Chorrillos por parte de los oficiales del Ejercito Chileno, no hubiera ocurrido la destruccion de este pueblo junto con una...'"


 * Which confirms the text on the newspaper... No metion of the Peruvian looters in this line, and even indicates than the Commander of the Chilean Army was aware of such acts and tries to justify them in his official report. Also states than the offices of the Chilean Army don't do anything to stop the atrocities (a word used in this source, an I think than must be used also in the article because is describes with precision the crimes committed in the towns) committed by the soldiers.


 * The evidence is clear and solid, Keysanger, can you affirm than the United States and Chilean Claims Commission is lyng in his report? This source must be used along with the newspaper to include the atrocities (using this word, because is the word used in one of the sources cited and in many others) and must be enough to discard Villalobos as an reliable source, because his book is clearly Chilean-sided and is questionated even in his own country. Greetings. --Cloudaoc (talk) 19:30, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

To your question can you affirm than the United States and Chilean Claims Commission is lyng in his report? my answer is YES, the claimer was interestad to demostrate that the Chilean Army was guilty in order to obtain some kind of compensation (dollars) from the Chilean government. We know it from the es:Caso Baltimore that the USA wasn't stingy if they saw (see) challenged his hegemony. But that is my opinion and it isn't important in this question. Relevant is what say the historians. --Keysanger (talk) 18:46, 30 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Hello, the problem is than historians doesn't have the obligation of being neutrals, and that's why we must choose carefully what source would be used to sustain any line in the article. Villalobos by example is not neutral in his book, and that's affirmed even by your own compatriots, and his work never achieved the recognition and relevance of any other publications, and because of that (and many other reasons) cannot be matched with a primary source like the newspaper, you cannot discard it because you think than the author of the notice is lying, you don´t have any evidence to sustain it, also for the Claims Commission, your opinion is irrelevant, both sources are valid and must be included in the article, and Villalobos must be removed because his work is unreliable and Chilean-sided. Greetings.--Cloudaoc (talk) 19:16, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Hello,

You wrote your own compatriots. I please you to let my intim sphere out of Wikipedia. I don't want to hear more about my person from people that don't know me. I'm not on intimate terms with you. That are the rules of Wikipedia. If you are looking for friends or foes, go to hell. Thank you.

About your "Case Chile-USA"


 * Page 143 "Se recibieron noticias del Coronel Iglesias i de otras fuentes acerca de las atrocidades cometidas por el Ejercito Chileno en Chorrilos


 * Page 163 "La verdadera razon para destruir la propiedad del reclamante i otras propiedades en Chorrillos, parece exponerlas el propio comandante del Ejercito Chileno, cuando en su informe oficial dice lo siguiente:"


 * Page 165 "..pues la batalla de Miraflores, es una prueba mas de que si hubiera tratado de dominarlas, en Chorrillos por parte de los oficiales del Ejercito Chileno, no hubiera ocurrido la destruccion de este pueblo junto con una..."

page 143: deals with "atrocities" What does it means that? Fire, mass executions, looting, rapes? What do you want to write there?. Do you have more reliable sources for?

page 163: That is not an statement that supports "Chileans did the destruction". Please read again. In the first sentence it is unknown who destroyed the property. The phrase announced only the reasons, but, because of unknown reasons, the relevant text is cut there.

page 165: this sentence only states that the Chilean officers didn't stop the destruction but not who did it.

It is hard to demostrate events about we heard at home but when we go out of the box no one knows about it. That are Myths and Legends. You have presented two documents (the newspaper and the case Chile-USA) and in my honest opinion none of them meet the simplest demands of Wikipedia. I was yesterday in the university library thumbing through the books and I found no mention of the destruction of Chorrillos as you presented it. It doesn't mean that there wasn't at all, but it says a lot about the WP:Due weight of the events.

We do remember that after the battle of Chorrillos the Peruvian state entered in a process of disintegration and many social hardships, political and economical disparities fueled tensions in the Peruvian population against particular ethnic groups. Blacks, Chinese, Indians, Meztizos and Europeans were this days living out of the rule of law. It is very easy for the true wrongdoers to claim "the Mapochos did it".

--Keysanger (talk) 22:44, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Issue nr 38
current text:

After the Chilean invasion of Antofagasta, Hilarión Daza made a presidential decree on March 1, 1879, which demanded the expulsion of Chileans, the nationalizing of Chilean private property and prohibited trade and communications with Chile "as long as the war lasts".[21] Due to its aggressiveness the Chilean government understood the decree as a declaration of war.[22][23] However, although both nations had already taken aggressive actions, in reality no war had yet been formally declared from either side of the conflict.[24][25]

--

For the non-declaration of war there are ONE reference:

"Historia del Perú" by Atilio Sivirichi, 1932, page 193:
 * Este hecho, hábilmente fue interpretado por el gobierno chileno, como declaratoria de guerra y como causal justificativa parala ocupación de todo el litoral ...

--

Following given sources say nothing about the non-declaration of war:

"Narracion historica de la Guerra del Pacifico" by Mariano Paz Soldan, page 81:
 * En tal estado de cosas llegó á Santiago (Marzo V) la noticia de varios decretos del Gobierno de Bolivia, tales coino el de expulsión de los chilenos alli residentes ; embargo de las propiedades de éstos, inclusive las niinas, y amenaza de confiscación, si las hostilidades de Chile asi lo requerian.

"Historia ecónomica de Bolivia," Band 2 by Luis Peñaloza Cordero says nothing about

Mesa redonda sobre el problema del litoral boliviano‎ - page 121 by Alcira Cardona Torrico - 1966 - 325 pages
 * En 1' de marzo se ordenó la confiscación de muebles e inmuebles de propiedad de chilenos, se dispuso la ocupación por el Estado de las minas de Corocoro, ...

"Historia financiera de Bolivia" page 405 by Casto Rojas - 1916 - 421 pages
 * Dos días despues (I9 de marzo), se ordenó el secuestro bélico de las propiedades muebles e inmuebles de todos los chilenos, concediéndose a éstos 10 días de ...

"Guerra del Pacífico: los tribunales arbitrales, 1882-1888" by Alejandro Soto Cárdenas
 * ''"que ordenó la expulsión de los chilenos de Bolivia y "

"De la fundación a la Guerra del Salitre" by Juan Pereira Fiorilo
 * "El 1 de marzo de 1879 se declara el embargo de todas las propiedades muebles "

For the declaration of war are:

"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 ...

(From the editorial: William Jefferson Dennis, the author of this study and an instructor in the State University of Iowa, was resident of Peru from 1917 to 1922 and also visited Chile and Bolivia, this qualification, it is hoped, have enabled him to preserve something of the atmosphere of the controverse without imparing the judicial and impartial spirit of its record.)

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

About William F. Sater : There is no question that Professor Sater is the foremost authority on the War of the Pacific in the English language and probably in any language. here

"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.

country-data.com
 * Bolivia, in alliance with Peru, declared war on Chile on March 1, ...'

andrewclem.com
 * ..., but Bolivia declared war on Chile and made known its “secret” alliance with Peru in March, ...

globalsecurity.com
 * Bolivia, in alliance with Peru, declared war on Chile on March 1,...

Encarta
 * Bolivia declared war and was joined by Peru, a partner in a secret alliance.

"The geopolitics of security in the Americas: hemispheric denial from Monroe ..." by Martin Sicker here
 * and Bolivia declared war on 14 February 1879 ...

"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 ...

"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.

"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 ..."

-

The consuting was here

The last opinions of the invited were:


 * I didn't see those sources that claim Bolivia declared no war prior to Chile's declaration of war so I don't even know if they exist. But, when sources DO conflict, we don't throw up our hands and say it's unknown, rather, we simply report what the various sources say, without giving undue weight to fringe viewpoints. But that is a discussion for the NPOV noticeboard, not here. Dlabtot (talk) 22:51, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
 * (reply to both) It would be very helpful, if rather than just stating that these sources exist, you actually identified them. Dlabtot (talk) 00:34, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Encarta is a reliable tertiary source but it's also a competing encyclopedia so we should see if other sources are available. Globalsecurity.org originated from the Federation of American Scientists and is very well-respected. Onwar.com I wasn't familiar with, but from searching for it on Google Books it looks adequate. Try for more book sources for the declaration of war. If they conflict on the exact date you can say "early March" and cite them all with the exact date in the footnotes. If the sources conflict on whether a formal declaration of war was made then dig deeper. Squidfryerchef (talk) 17:25, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
 * We have established that multiple reliable sources say that Bolivia declared war. It seems that no reliable sources exist that dispute this. Rather, we have Wikipedia editors who are reaching this conclusion, based on their own interpretation and analysis of sources. Lacking sources that actually state that Bolivia did not declare war, we must simply state what the sources say. Sources that don't mention the absence of a declaration of war certainly could not be used to assert the viewpoint that Bolivia did not declare war. Dlabtot (talk) 18:41, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
 * It's actually pretty simple. If a source says that Bolivia did not declare war, then we can report that that source said that Bolivia did not declare war. If a source does not say that Bolivia did not declare war, we can not report that that source said that Bolivia did not declare war. I have nothing further to say about the matter. Dlabtot (talk) 19:37, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

I see that the opinion of the invited is We have established that multiple reliable sources say that Bolivia declared war. There are no reasons to change the majority of the documents and insert a "due to agressiveness".

--Keysanger (talk) 10:24, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

TOC
It is noteworthy that the article lacks a structure that helps the reader to understand the events, the 	length of time, the places and the importance of the facts.

I will present you a ideal table of contents (TOC) containing all the issues the article deals with, its herarchie and position in the time. Most of the issues are already in the text. Feel free to give your opinion to the tabel.

The War of the Pacific Background Boundary disputes in South America Economic interests: Nitrate/Economy Rivalry Chile/Peru Treaties 1866            1873             1874      Crisis The Ten Cents tax Peruvian Mediation Occupation of Antofagasta The War Naval campaign Land campaign in Antofagasta and Tarapaca Invasion of Tacna and Arica Lynch's Expedition Battle of Chorrillos and Miraflores Occupation of Lima Campaign of La Sierra Political issues during the war Collapse of Daza in Bolivia Collapse of Prado in Peru Election of Domingo Santa María in Chile Lackawamma Conference Government of Montero in Peru Government of Iglesias in Peru Peace Peace treaty with Peru Peace treaty with Bolivia Strategy and technology International law and war delicts World perspectives America Europe Aftermath Socioeconomic and territorial consequences Bolivia Chile Peru Bibliography See also References External links -

--Keysanger (talk) 17:52, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Reliable references
We have experienced that the we can find in internet (google) almost every opinion about the war. I won't repeat what for sources are/have been used in the article until now. The War of the Pacific is a controversial article but there are enough serious studies about the war.

In order to get the article out of a mess, we must use ONLY reliable sources.

I recommend William F. Sater "Andean Tragedy" and Bruce W. Farcau "The Ten Cents War" as a good documented works about the war. Sater's book has 442 pages well researched and well organized that constitutes the best one volume account of this tragic war. inclusive 40 pages for notes and 12 pages for bibliography. There is no question that Professor Sater is the foremost authority on the War of the Pacific in the English language and probably in any language.

I think, that any issue or opinion that doesn't appear in this two works arouse suspicion or doesn't merit to be mentioned in Wikipedia.

--Keysanger (talk) 12:51, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Commanders
As in the Falklands War and WW2 the name of the presidents are to be written under "commanders" because they are the actually military commanders during the war. --Keysanger (talk) 11:35, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

References must fit to the sentence
I deleted some absurd references like:


 * in response, claimed the border treaty of 1874 did not allow for such a tax hike.[21]

reference 21 linked to the (wikisource) Tratado de Limites Ch-B of 1874. That is non-sense because the treaty can be interpreted in different ways. Please be more careful to give refernces. --Keysanger (talk) 11:50, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

On the sad and disastrous state of this article.
I must admit I grew tired of the endless discussion and I didn't feel like talking to a wall on an article where progress -let alone collaborative building- was nearly impossible, and I decided it was more productive for me to move on and work on other areas of Wikipedia. I see others felt the same way and also left. Nonetheless, I won't allow that the information that was diligently collected (including vast amounts of references) that were in the article be sent to oblivion.

Eventually, I will come back to this article, although I don't know when. Perhaps, when the time is right and when editors are willing to cooperate with each other and all the silly nationalisms revolving this subject are left outside of Wikipedia, as it should be. See you all soon. Likeminas (talk) 18:24, 23 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I completely agree with Likeminas. This article has turned into a disaster. I explicitly blame Keysanger and the rest of the nationalist fools who focus on promoting their nationalistic POV instead of focusing on presenting the true history. The lot of you are not even worth to be called "Wikipedians." The failure of Wikipedia can be seen in the development of this article. Me, Arafael, and Likeminas (along with Dentren) had opposing viewpoints, but we all contributed to the article with factual information; which we all then worked on mixing and thus creating a factual and, therefore, neutral article. Now the article is a mess, with all of the information being twisted to fit particular POVs, and other important information being deleted. I urge all of those who read this message to not believe what they read in this article; at least not until the information presented is factual and neutral.--$%MarshalN20%$ (talk) 12:45, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Please explain all your claims as precise and accurate as possible and refrain of personal attacks. Thank you, --Keysanger (talk) 13:00, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Good will is assumed but isn't enough
Unfortunately, your good will, which I have to assume, isn't enough to improve the article. In order to redound to the article "War of the Pacific" you should have read/understand about the war, which I haven't to assume, and I can ask for reliable references. During the discussions about the issues you were unable to contribute with reliable sources (v.g. "Heavy british investment leads") or simply you abandoned (v.g. Gigs's Cabal Mediation). And this situation will remain unchanged also when you call for help more people: Wikipedia isn't a democracy.

Regarding your lapses, if you can only think of people who disagree with in terms of unflattering political stereotypes that is merely a sad reflection upon your own narrow-mindedness. --Keysanger (talk) 15:10, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Bolivian Declaration of War
You continue to assume that Bolivia never declared the war on Chile and try to impose the non sense to other wikipedians. Only for the information of the newbies I write here the rerefernces given in the article:

Because the capital of Bolivia, La Paz, lacked a telegraph connexion abroad the there are different data for declaration of war depending of the place (i.e. the used means of transportation carriage, ship, telegraph abroad) where the new was received. There are two documents about and William F. Sater in "Andean Tragedy", page 28 states:
 * Two weeks after the Chilean occupation of Antofagasta, he [Bolivian dictator Daza] declared that 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.

See also :   "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 ...''  "Andean Tragedy", William F. Sater, page 39:Thus, Daza's declaration of war was a godsend ..., also page 42in March he suddenly declared war on Chile  "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.  country-data.com: Bolivia, in alliance with Peru, declared war on Chile on March 1, ...'  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,...</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> "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.</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 ...". </ol>

You can find both documents here:


 * William Jefferson Dennis, "Documentary history of the Tacna-Arica dispute", published by the University, Iowa City, 1927. It contains many important documents (translated) in English language. (Download here)

So, please stopt deleteing or changing referenced and uncontested information.

--Keysanger (talk) 07:22, 26 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I'll just say this once. It was demonstrated by User:Arafael that Bolivian law specifies for war to only be officially declared by the Bolivian congress. Daza's "declaration of war" is simply an outburst of Daza, which at most could be considered an un-official declaration of war (Much like the Chilean invasion of Bolivian territory could also be deemed as an un-official declaration of war). In other words, Bolivia did not officially declare war. Chile was the first country out of the three (Bolivia, Peru, and Chile) to officially declare war first. Peru followed after Chile, and also officially activated the causus foederis of the war (which then officially included Bolivia into the conflict).--$%MarshalN20%$ (talk) 13:09, 26 September 2009 (UTC)


 * All of the sources you provide have an erroneous founding for their statement. They hold no knowledge on the Bolivian method of declaring war. They base their interpretation from the Chilean POV; when they should refer to the official Bolivian POV as it is dealing with that particular nation more-so than with Chile. This is one of the cases in which the majority is incorrect. That being said, this article is still a biased piece of worthlesness; it has been destroyed and twisted to fit a specific biased POV. I continue to warn all readers to look at this article and doubt many of the things it presents.--$%MarshalN20%$ (talk) 13:09, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you MarshalN20 for freeing us from the darkness, Now we know the ligth of your words, your mind is iluminating our way to the future, please continue your work in other articles, we already free. you are Wikipedia's Liberator!!!,. --Keysanger (talk) 16:49, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Community
I remember to all interested wikipedians that there is the posibility of a "Request of Comment" for every article. If someone of you think that the article lacks neutrality (or any other desired quality), s/he should feel free to make such request. Of course, knowing that my english skills are not perfect, I put the Copy-Edit tag at the beginning of the page. Perhaps some detractor should begins there.

--Keysanger (talk) 07:30, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

contribution
The "contribution" is another example for contributions of the editor: the relevant text of the reference was deleted and replaced through the opinion of the editor. The editor neither add references for the new text (his/her opinion) nor adapted the text in order to include new references. The only effect of the change, I must assume good faith of the editor, was to make the old text illegible.

By the way, the paragraph being cuestioned was not written by me, I believe I only added the -tag somewhere down the road. --Keysanger (talk) 12:32, 27 September 2009 (UTC)