Talk:War of the Pacific/Archive 8

Request for Comment
The War of the Pacific is in Wikipedia a controversial theme and a wide feedback from the community can improve the quality of the article. --Keysanger (talk) 08:50, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

RfC Response: Fifelfoo (talk) 12:00, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
Just because I haven't mentioned it, don't think its okay. There are massive SYN OR problems because people have been citing claims out of primary instead of secondary sources. Your citation styles are constantly changing, making verification near impossible. You need to establish some kind of quote repository not on the main page. You need to re-write the narrative out of the best-available scholarly monographs... preferably the English Language ones. If you notice a certain frustration in my typing, its because your references are horrifyingly bad.

Spellcheck the entire thing.

Moving on
Hi Fifelfoo,

I edited and normalized almost every reference. I think most of flaws were trivial, like incomplete citation, not in bibliography, spacing, Unacceptable citation format (!) and such kind of bagatelle. I replaced some dubious source with references to Farcau or Sater.

But some problems are still there:
 * Jorge Basadre. There are quotatins from his book, with page nr, chapter, etc, and sometimes are quotations from the webpage of the (web version) of his book, no page nr, no publishers etc. Jorge Basadre is a serious Peruvian historian, a University in Peru bear his name. We need sometime to normalize the quotations. In no way the inconsistence of the quotations means that Basadre has to be disqualified as "full of dreck, OR, PRIMARY". It means only that you have to use both media, the book and the website, to verify the content of the article. Sorry.
 * Case Treaty of Alliance Peru-Bolivia. There are a lot of references in "Unacceptable citation format", aged, etc. The intention of the "collection" isn't to show the book self or the author but to demostrate that a significant part of historians considered the alliance as defensive and a significant part of historians considered the alliance as offensive. It was the only way we found: gathering the opinion of the historian and the lists are the result: one list for defensive and one list for offensive. You can see the comical discussion in Talk:War of the Pacific/Archive 4. Actually it is obvious that a pact will be interpreted differently in inaccordance with the circumtances: for example the Hitler-Stalin Pact had different interpretations in Germany, in Poland and in the UdSSR and this interpretations changed before, after the beginning of the WW2 and changed again after the End of the WW2. But that seems obscure for some wikipedians that wanted to declare the Peru-Bolivia Alliance as defensive and only used defensive and they are still smouldering as you note in your Talk page. I will be happy to agree to delete both lists but YOU have to write the replacement text for the article and the explain in this Talk page. I consider the lists a tradeoff with the shortcomings of the Wikipedia community. (there are wikipedians with a poor english, for example, do you know someone?)
 * Case Bolivia's Declaration War. We had the same problem. There are wikipedians that wanted to hide the DoW despite the facs (see Farcau and Sater). Again a long list was the only solution. But now I deleted all but Farcau, Sater and the Iowa reference. That should be enough. If a editwar begins again I will add the list again.

I think the references are now much better. The content remains unchanged. Please take a look in-depth this time and tell me your valuable opinion. --Keysanger (talk) 17:21, 2 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Your citations are still unacceptable. Fix the bibliography.  Fix the ff citations.  Normalise them, one doesn't "See" a citation.  I extensively reviewed the citation format and use; you've fiddled at the edges of a few easy search-and-replace fixes.  I have no interest in interrogating the content until the article actually cites its sources, clearly differentiates primary from secondary, and demonstrates what it is quoting from where, in an appropriate format.  There are slab quotes not in English.  There is obvious (extensive) synthesis of primary sources rather than writing out of secondary sources.  There are still citations without publication & author information, or title translations.  Most disturbingly, many citations aren't in the bibliography.  You've glossed over the RFC and attempted to "move on" despite deep failings in the basic writing of this article. Fifelfoo (talk) 14:47, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

No neutral
Text and maps only shows one POV
 * 1) First map shows only chilean borders in black
 * 2) "After an illegal..."
 * 3) "The war officially began on 1879, after the Bolivian declaration of war..."
 * 4) "Chile, the smallest country of the three..."
 * 5) "Bolivia increased the tax on nitrate in spite of..."
 * 6) "Rivalry between Chile and Peru..."
 * 7) "Occupation of Antofagasta and Peruvian Mediation..."
 * 8) "On March 1. 1879 Bolivian dictator Hilarión Daza declared war on Chile..."
 * 9) "The US-American historian William F. Sater ..."
 * 10) "from the Chilean ships and occupied the Bolivian port city of Antofagasta..."
 * 11) "Once the naval superiority was achieved..."
 * 12) "Downfall of President Prado in Peru and Daza in Bolivia..."
 * 13) "Lynch's Expedition..."
 * 14) "but Peruvian authors accuse drunken Chilean soldiers of the damages and crimes..."
 * 15) "Occupation of Peru..."
 * and many others...

Arafael (talk) 15:41, 3 October 2009 (UTC)


 * It isn't enough to say "bad". You have to say why the text is POV. Please don't consider only your references from reliable sources (only) but also others and don't forget to read WP:due weight. --Keysanger (talk) 16:38, 3 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Ok, but you must also read WP:due weight. Only you are editing it.
 * Could we start to "weight" the article now?
 * Do not remove NPOV until we finish.
 * Arafael (talk) 13:04, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

You have to explain why the issues are POV. You have placed the template as a bot would have done it and that doesn't work. This is a textbook example of how to abuse of the POV-tag to harass other editors. --Keysanger (talk) 15:44, 5 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Are POV because only one editor (you) are writing the article, based almost in one book (William F. Sater has 63 references) and others books are wrong for you.
 * Also read the POV tag, do not remove like a bot. It said ...Please do not remove this message until the dispute is resolved.
 * Arafael (talk) 16:44, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

There is a lot of articles written by one editor, that doesn't matter. The criteria for POV are others. The same is valid for articles based on books. One is good, two are better, etc. Hera are a lot of books. Important is that the article remains neutral. Please be 	precise:


 * Which sentence
 * why
 * your sources (please use secondary sources)

You have to explain, give your reasons and build consensus. You don't begin the process and you put already the POV-tag!

If you like you can see the process in archive 7. Do not insist before you explain consistently your claims. --Keysanger (talk) 17:41, 5 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Why do you think you own this article Mr. Keysanger? Do you have no better things to do in life Mr. Keysanger?//Voice of Reason. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.91.173.174 (talk) 18:05, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Is it all what you have to say? --Keysanger (talk) 18:08, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Chronology : 10 cents tax
Do not write events during the war in sections dedicated to events before the war and don't use primary sources as reference for sentences. --Keysanger (talk) 18:42, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

I deleted a second time your contributuion.

The Bolivian and the Chilean tax increses are well documented facts, but the direct arrangement of facts separated by a broken boundary treaty and 3 years of war (1878-1880) is delicated because we have to expose all the facts occured during this time period. The direct deduction of the comparison is "Chilean are hypocrites because they took what they denied to Bolivians" and that would be POV because as Farcau stated Bruce W. Farcau, "The Ten Cents War", page 41,:
 * "The very fact that the legislature in La Paz found it necessary to vote in what they claimed was a strictly municipal issue when the tax was first levied implied that the conflict with the 1874 treaty was clearly seen and that a conscious precedent was being set"

The issue was not the 10 cents but that "a conscious precedent was being set". Best regards, --Keysanger (talk) 11:11, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

CoL
I AGREE your contribution, but don't use Markham as source because it is a primary source (and pro-Peruvian biased). Farcau and Sater support your statament, so you won't have problems to find references. If you can't finf them I will do it tomorrow. Also you have to respect the due weight: the batle of chorrillos is described only with 57 words, therefore the preparation should be shorter. --Keysanger (talk) 20:32, 3 October 2009 (UTC)


 * "pro peruvian"? Sater is based in Chileans sources so he is pro-Chilean(¿?), no tiene sentido y tú lo sabes Rasdar2 (talk) 20:42, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Can you support the statement: "Sater is based in Chileans sources so he is pro-Chilean" ?. I respect you but I am not interested in your personal opinions. Anyway, it is primary source. Please change it. --Keysanger (talk) 22:41, 3 October 2009 (UTC)


 * There are 63 references to William F. Sater in article. But he only writes about chilean POV. Look this: "Heroic Image in Chile: Arturo Prat - Secular Saint." by  William F. Sater.
 * And his own opinion in "El mercurio" (chilean newspaper) : "William F. Sater: Although I have over 40 years dedicated to studying this country (Chile), I will always be a foreigner "chilenista", not a chilean citizen... a fanatic of Chile (Chilemaníaco)"
 * Arafael (talk) 14:27, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

So if Tommaso Caivano(italian) (Storia della guerra d' America fra il Chili, il Peru e la Bolivia) or Clements Markhan(british) ("The War between Peru and Chile"), or Jacinto Lopez(venezuelan) (Historia de la guerra del guano y el salitre) and even José Martí(cuban) (Cuaderno N° 13 Tomo 21 de Obras Completas) refute the chilean version all them are "properuvians" and must be ignore and delete, why "Andean Tragedy: Fighting the War of the Pacific, 1879-1884‎" (by Sater) must be considerate the real true history of the war and be the main source of these article? For example (only one) acording to this author peruvian defenses(in Lima) were "supported by a formidable collection of coastal guns" most of heavy artillery was in the port of Callao and didn't take part of the battles of San Juan and Miraflores, self made peruvians Grieve and White field cannons can be considerate formidable artillery as the prusian 80 Krupps of the chilean artillery?, if Jose Francisco Vergara (chilean minister of war) said that peruvians had "insignifican civic cavalry parties and very insufficient and bad artillery troops" he is properuvian too? and what about Mason (sailor of the USN) "the artillery(peruvian), with enought material, some antiquated, another part made by empirical procediments by private manufacters of Lima and without fire exercises, wasn't able to compite with the experienced and well armed chilean artillery " following your point of view anyone who contradice the version that you like is parcialize, Arafael had quoted some of the non neutral parts of the article, to get a real neutrality both versions must be show, the reader will decide, that is what chileans and peruvians wikipedists continue doing in the spanish page "La guerra del pacífico". Rasdar2 (talk) 15:09, 5 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Please read the discussion thread: Do not use primary sources. Do you understand that? It doesn't matter if pro-X pro-Y or pro-Z. It is primary source!. If you don't, then ask MarshalN20. He has understand it now.--Keysanger (talk) 15:50, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

And what about Sater as an parcialize source? Arafael just proved it. Rasdar2 (talk) 16:21, 5 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia do not exclude "primary sources": Read: Our policy: Primary sources that have been reliably published may be used in Wikipedia...Deciding whether primary, secondary or tertiary sources are more suitable on any given occasion is a matter of common sense. Arafael (talk) 16:56, 5 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Do you agree that we have to use in this article no primary sources?. I want that this issue is cleared. Next we can talk about Farcau/Sater.
 * Fifelfoo is for use of secondary sources
 * MarshalN20 is for use of secondary sources
 * Keysanger is for use of secondary sources
 * Wikipedia is for use of secondary sources
 * Rasdar2, Do you agree to use only secondary sources? --Keysanger (talk) 16:37, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

How is Sir Markham a primary source? He is an Englishman who took the time to write a book on the war based on the accounts of other people. Therefore, by definition, Markham is not a primary source. He is more of a secondary source. However, it is obvious that Markham tends to be pro-Peru. This is the same case with Sater, another secondary source, who tends to be pro-Chile. Who are you to decide what is a right and what is a wrong source, Mr. Keysanger? Shouldn't Wikipedia mix these two sources in order to arrive to a neutral conclusion?--Voice of Reason. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.91.173.174 (talk) 17:54, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Our concepts of primary sources are different, if Sater is considerate and imparcial and secondary source, i don't agree with you.Rasdar2 (talk) 19:15, 5 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Are you sure? there are 3 persons saying that Sater has to be considered. You don't agree with the statament "Sater is considerate and imparcial and secondary source". Perhaps you are right. Let's us call a cabal mediation. Do you agree to call Cabal Mediation?. --Keysanger (talk) 19:23, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Ownership of Article by Keysanger
I think it's obvious by now that User:Keysanger has a severe ownership problem with this article. Just take a look at the article's history and there will be an ocean of "Keysanger" edits throughout it. I think that this should be reported to a Wikipedia administrator as it goes against the spirit of the project.-- MarshalN20 | T a l k 14:23, 4 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I'll agree, and even more, Keysanger discard any editing that is not aligned with the version he thinks proper, including the discarded of primary sources than he considered non-neutral, this behavior is unacceptable and must be stop, even the agreements reached previously are simple ignored by this so-called "wikipedian". Keysanger, this article is not yours, and your version of the facts is quite far from the truth. Greetings --Cloudaoc (talk) 05:51, 5 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Truthiness doesn't matter here, its reliability of sources. Blanking Talk: before an RFC, tendentious reliability editing when the reliability issues of all sources have been listed, Hostile behaviour on Talk:, and attempts to control Talk: by editing other's contributions&mdash;ownership issues.  I came from an RFC Keysanger called for; contributed extensively regarding the sourcing problems (primarily using Primaries (of any kind) to attempt to verify).  Keysanger selectively dealt with the RFC points I had made, and then claimed to have completed editing in response without arguing why he selectively addressed citation format and sourcing issues. Fifelfoo (talk) 06:21, 5 October 2009 (UTC)


 * He calls neutrality (due weight), but deleted NPOV title. It seems that nobody can be against what he wrote. Sater writes only one POV. Arafael (talk) 14:27, 5 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree with all of you, but on different terms. Cloudaoc, it certainly is unacceptable for Keysanger to determine what source is "non-neutral" and which is "neutral." However, just like Fifelfoo explains, Wikipedia policy is against using Primary Sources. Primary sources are direct, first-hand, accounts on the matter; and they, by nature of first-hand, can be interpreted in a matter of ways (which goes against WP:OR, or original research). In this article, there are primary Peruvian, Chilean, and even Bolivian sources. However, not only is Keysanger breaking WP:OR with this issue, but he is also breaking WP:NPOV by interpreting sources in order to favor a Chilean point of view. By "selecting" which source is right ("neutral") and which source is not right or not favorable to Chile ("non neutral"), he is creating a terrible POV issue that makes this article a mess. Even other Chilean wikipedians agree that Keysanger has turned this article into a mess, as can be seen here: . Furthermore, as also noted by Fifelfoo, Keysanger has presented the clear signs of the WP:OWN problem. -- MarshalN20 | T a l k 13:43, 5 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Moreover, here are some Keysanger quotes to entertain your heads:
 * "I will be happy to agree to delete both lists but YOU have to write the replacement text for the article and the explain in this Talk page.": Keysanger responding to Fifelfoo, who attempted to help fix the reference problems. Apparently, Keysanger got angry that Fifelfoo did not tell him, "Keysanger, this article is perfect, and you are a citation prodigy." (My point being, this is no way to treat a person who is helping improve the article; this is a usual example of WP:OWN, and a WP:CIVIL issue as well).
 * "You can see the comical discussion in Talk:War of the Pacific/Archive 4.": Keysanger refering to a serious discussion regarding whether the Peru-Bolivia alliance was defensive, offensive, or both. In fact, the matter was so serious that a dispute resolution process had to be followed (it took almost 2 or 3 weeks, I think).
 * "If a editwar begins again I will add the list again.": Aside from using poor English, this once again demonstrates that Keysanger expects to go on an edit war. Should Wikipedia editors be like soldiers? I don't agree.
 * Well, and mind all of you that this is only in this talk page. If you go back to the archives, you'll see plenty of other "fun" discussions with Keysanger.-- MarshalN20 | T a l k 13:41, 5 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Basically, to sum things up (if you don't want to read the above), Keysanger has broken: WP:OR, WP:NPOV, WP:CIVIL, and WP:OWN.-- MarshalN20 | T a l k 13:41, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Where does Keysanger want to go with the RfCs (Yes, more than one)?
Fifelfoo hasn't been the only person Keysanger has contacted for an RfC for the War of the Pacific. He has contacted User:Anarchangel, User:David Underdown , User:Necessary Evil , among others. Yet, my question is (based on what happened with Fifelfoo), why does Keysanger want so many RfCs if he is not going to listen to what they tell him? I suppose that it's not wrong for RfCs to be asked for articles, but why ask them if you're not going to do what they recommend? Moreover, why then claim that you've done what they recommended, when in fact such a thing has not been done?-- MarshalN20 | T a l k 13:41, 5 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I'll be the first to respond to my question, but if anybody else has an opinion, please bring it forth. Keysanger is looking to have some foundation for this article. Keysanger needs to get support for the article (Me, User:Dentren, User:Likeminas, User:Arafael, and User:Rasdar2 are among the people who have openly expressed our disagreement with how this article is being ran), and is desperate to get it in any way possible. Since he knows that he has broken plenty of Wikipedia policies, he wants to somehow get other people to sustain his fall. This is the classic, "but the other guy told me it was OK" problem. If, for instance, if Fifelfoo said that Keysanger had done what he asked him to do (which he obviously did not), Keysanger would later use Fifelfoo in order to get some back-up in case this page got challenged again (which it has been, by users Arafael and Rasdar2). Luckily, Fifelfoo didn't fall for that trap (not only that, but he's made Keysanger angry; which is not a surprise as he gets angry with whoever disagrees with him). Nonetheless, seeing as how others will also post up their RfCs, please be aware of this issue.-- MarshalN20 | T a l k 13:41, 5 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I think you are wrong in some parts of your analysis Mr. MarshalN20. Why is it wrong to use primary sources Mr. MarshalN20? I think Mr. Arafael explained that using primary sources is not against Wikipedia policy. However, I do think that he also explained that such sources should be used with care (in order to avoid original research). Mr. MarshalN20, if Mr. Keysanger is such a disruptive editor, why hasn't anyone reported him yet?//Voice of Reason.(165.91.173.174 (talk) 18:16, 5 October 2009 (UTC))


 * I think it's wrong to use primary sources because such information is subject to personal opinion. It can be twisted and fitted to particular POVs. However, in the article, Chilean primary sources are also being used. Diego Barros Arana, a primary source, is referenced twice. Clements Markham citations should also be minor and, if possible, backed up. Keysanger has no right to decide which primary sources he can or cannot use.-- MarshalN20 | T a l k 22:19, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

William F. Sater
I see some of the editors don't know Sater. I already explained that Sater is one of the best if not the best historian about the issue.

His book "Andean Tragedy" has 442 pages, included approx. 60 pages with references, 15 pages bibliography and 6 pages of index.

About the quality, read please:


 * 1) 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.


 * 1) William F. Sater is an emeritus professor of history at California State University-Long Beach. He is the coauthor of The Grand Illusion: The Prussianization of The Chilean Army (Nebraska 1999) and of A History of Chile, 1802-2002, second edition.

Do you know a better source for "The War of the Pacific"? --Keysanger (talk) 17:21, 5 October 2009 (UTC)


 * The standard for academic history is reviews in academic journals. For sources published in academic press, there is no "Best" source in history as an academic discipline, and the most reliable sources for history should all be cited, particularly when they make different evaluations.  Fifelfoo (talk) 17:35, 5 October 2009 (UTC)


 * It is Carlos López Urrutia's opinion. Is he a book evaluator? He is chilean.
 * Read his nationalistic opinion. "...Taking sides with Chilean Historian Francisco Encina, the author treats General Baquedano with equal ferocity...."
 * William F. Sater lived 40 years in Chile. He considers himself a "Chilenista".. Look this book: "Heroic Image in Chile: Arturo Prat - Secular Saint." by  William F. Sater.


 * Arafael (talk) 17:42, 5 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Sater's national affiliations don't matter. He's published in University of Nebraska Press.  That makes him a reliable source, of the highest quality for History articles.  If there are other historians, published in the academic press, who present different evaluations, locate them, and add them into the article.  Also, the position of the sources should probably be mentioned if there's disagreement about circumstances or evaluation. Fifelfoo (talk) 17:47, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Arafael:

Please cite the whole sentence:


 * -¿A qué atribuye tanta demora en el interés de Chile por traducir un trabajo que trata de uno de sus héroes más importantes?


 * "A que soy extranjero. Aunque llevo más de 40 años dedicado a estudiar este país, siempre voy a ser extranjero, "chilenista" y no chileno. Para algunos soy un entrometido, pero esos son imperialistas intelectuales. La historia de los países es del mundo".

What is "chilenista"?

That make sense only to say "a person who studies Chile". Therefore he says "siempre voy a ser extranjero, "chilenista" y no chileno" that is "I will always remain allien, chilenista but not Chilean".

Sater is very critical with the Chilean society. Please read more about him.

what is natinalistic in "...Taking sides with Chilean Historian Francisco Encina, the author treats General Baquedano with equal ferocity...."?

Baquedano is critized because of his military strategy. What is the problem there.

Fifelfo:

I agree with you. Tell me which are the sentences in the text that are not NPOV and the sources they make different evaluations. I am openminded to accept changes in the text. Let's go on!

Which sentence is not NPOV?

--Keysanger (talk) 18:03, 5 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Sater should be included, his published works are reliable sources. However, why is Mr. Keysanger deleting reliable sources that he claims to be "pro-Peruvian" (Such as the source of Sir Markham)? Mr. Fifelfoo, I don't agree with Mr. Keysanger's judging. I don't think Wikipedia allows for individual users to take control, or ownership of articles. Am I wrong on this Mr. Fifelfoo? Does Wikipedia allow for individual editors to take ownership of articles? What determines if a source is reliable or not? Shouldn't Wikipedia represent all views on the matter, not just the views of Chile?--Voice of Reason. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.91.173.174 (talk) 17:58, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Because Sir Markham is a primary source, how many times have I to repeat it! --Keysanger (talk) 18:03, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

I repeat: What do you want to change? Which sentence is not neutral? which are your better sources? why is that sentence no neutral? --Keysanger (talk) 18:06, 5 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I ask you why Sir Markham, a notable gentleman who our dearest Queen and King bestowed his honorable title, is a primary source? And yet, Mr. Keysanger, all you keep saying is "because Sir Markham is a primary source?" I think you are not responding to my question Mr. Keysanger. You are merely going around in circles.//Voice of Reason (165.91.173.174 (talk) 18:10, 5 October 2009 (UTC))
 * Read No_original_research --Keysanger (talk) 19:26, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Mr. Keysanger, do you need a break? If you keep repeating yourself, then you are probably not explaining yourself correctly.//Voice of Reason (165.91.173.174 (talk) 18:10, 5 October 2009 (UTC))


 * Sir Clements Markham is in wikipedia, read his article. Arafael (talk) 18:11, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I've listed sentences and paragraphs. There are "other" sources POV, not "better" POV. Arafael (talk) 18:11, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Hitler is also in Wikipedia Don't read the article about him. Which is your issue? --Keysanger (talk) 18:13, 5 October 2009 (UTC)


 * English language academic habit doesn't use honourifics, including "Mr." "A history of Peru By Clements Robert Markham" provide a fullcite. Oh stuff it, Markham, Clements R. (Clements Robert), Sir, 1830-1916. A history of Peru / by Clements R. Markham. Chicago : C. H. Sergel and Company, 1892. Sergel isn't a university. Clements isn't a historian, the scholarship is 100+ years out of date. Not the highest grade of RS according to the WP History project. Keysanger, I've told you repeatedly, and at length, what you need to do with this article, and you've barely started work on it. Fifelfoo (talk) 18:17, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

I asked your advice for continue the work. Please give me information about:

What do you mean with :
 * Fix the Bibliography (I separated 1. from 2. Sources and added all main sources)
 * Fix the ff citations (that is "page 23 ff"="page 23 and also following pages")

As I understand, we don't need to add every citation to the bibliography. If the author is (correctly) cited once, then we don't need to add it to the B. Am I right? --Keysanger (talk) 18:24, 5 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your explanation Mr. Fifelfoo. Yet, even if Sir Markham is not in "the highest grade of RS," isn't his research still important? After all, I dare say that this article requires more research from the Peruvian and Bolivian point of view. All of the article right now seems to be concerned on how Chile viewed things. Shouldn't Wikipedia mix sources in order to avoid having a non neutral edition?//Voice of Reason (165.91.173.174 (talk) 18:26, 5 October 2009 (UTC))


 * Please stop addressing me with honourifics. Find recent (since 1930) academically published works.  Markham is outside of his specialty, which makes him opinion, "In the opinion of the geographer Markham, " "".  Not notable enough to cite.  Wikipedia shouldn't "mix" sources.  All RS, and the History project sets the hurdle higher than others: RS in academic modes, should contribute towards the article.  Pro or anti- Chilean doesn't matter. Fifelfoo (talk) 18:32, 5 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I will try my best not to address you with honourifics (It's a bad habit. I address people I don't know with honourifics). I think I better understand the citation policy, thank you Fifelfoo. Mr. Keysanger constantly states that he bases his edits on whether a source is "neutral" or "non-neutral". That is why I thought that this was the criteria for Wikipedia articles. However, your explanation better clears things up. Thank you again.//Voice of Reason (165.91.173.174 (talk) 18:38, 5 October 2009 (UTC))

It seems to me that talking to Mr. Keysanger is like talking to a spinning wheel. You respond to it, and it comes back around to the same question. You give it help, and it comes back around to the same question. And when it tries to answer a question or make a statement, it goes around in circles without really saying anything. Mr. Keysanger, have you ever given thought to listening to the suggestions of others or to reply in a straight-forward way (perhaps laconic) instead of going around in circles?//Voice of Reason (165.91.173.174 (talk) 18:26, 5 October 2009 (UTC))


 * Fifelfoo, Peruvian History usually refers to Markam, Caivano and other authors whom wrote books before 1930. What if we couldn't find pro-peruvian author's. The article could become unbalanced. A book need years of investigation and it is not a sport in Peru writing history books. Less even in a university from USA. Arafael (talk) 19:09, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Keysanger stop removing NPOV tag
I've listed some sentences and paragraphs before. Arafael (talk) 18:51, 5 October 2009 (UTC)


 * That is by far not enough. Be precise. --Keysanger (talk) 19:02, 5 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Could you recover NPOV-tag? We disagree in many things.
 * Let's start with map.
 * Arafael (talk) 19:13, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

What about the map? --Keysanger (talk) 19:18, 5 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Puna de Atacama is bigger, review again the map source. Also lacks Peru, Bolivia and Argentina "black" border.
 * Could you recover NPOV-tag? We disagree in many things.
 * Arafael (talk) 19:27, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

I am looking to http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:MPazSoldan.1888-2xChile.djvu as source map.

Near 26°S there is a horizontal line until 66,5°W and there the border go upwards until approx 21,5°S and then straigh to east. ("limite actual")

Now we look http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Wotp.en.svg the article's map.

Give 5 minutes and I will load a new map. --Keysanger (talk) 19:42, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Now is the new map there. Do you agree? --Keysanger (talk) 19:48, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
 * The map is wrong, the south frontier of Peru before the War of Pacific follows the course of the Loa river. Please correct. Greetings. --Cloudaoc (talk) 19:57, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
 * And correct subtitle. It only refers to Chile. A minor change: country colors. Arafael (talk) 20:29, 5 October 2009 (UTC)


 * See http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Departamento_moquegua_1865.JPG the frontier Bolivia-Peru doesn'follow the course of the Loa River. The map was drawn by Mariano Paz Soldan --Keysanger (talk) 21:08, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Have you seen the dates? they are all wrong! "On 28 November 1880 declared the formal blockade of Arica" Arica falls on june seven (1880); "On 24 February 1881 approximately 11,000 men in nineteen ships" Lima falls on 17 january(1881)! The Lackawanna Conference was after the campaing of Tacna an Arica, Sater said that? (¿?)Rasdar2 (talk) 20:41, 5 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, I have seen it and I put the reference: Sater, AT, page 214. --Keysanger (talk) 21:18, 5 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, the Lackawamma conference was after Arica campaign, and? --Keysanger (talk) 21:22, 5 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Keysanger: Could you recover NPOV-tag? We disagree in many things. You are writing only one POV. Arafael (talk) 21:05, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
 * There is a debate if it was illegal o legal. Arafael (talk) 21:12, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

You havn't mentioned any reason for. The colors of the map aren't. --Keysanger (talk) 21:14, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

please dont be fatuous, all the dates are wrong, where did you get that information? ok lets star a point by point debate, first the ilegal or legal bolivian tax, i'm back in 4 hours. Rasdar2 (talk) 21:18, 5 October 2009 (UTC)


 * The problem here is that Keysanger sets the tax as illegal. The problem is that to Bolivia the tax was perfectly legal since to them the treaty the company signed was not legal. To the company, and to Chile, the tax was seen as illegal. Both of these points of view should be presented in the article.-- MarshalN20 | T a l k 12:36, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Bolivian Tax
I wrote my references already:
 * William F. Sater, "Chile and the War of the Pacific", page 6:
 * "The increase of taxes on the Compañia de Salitres y Ferrocarril clearly violated the 1874 treaty."


 * Bruce W. Farcau, "The Ten Cents War", page 41,:
 * "The very fact that the legislature in La Paz found it necessary to vote in what they claimed was a strictly municipal issue when the tax was first levied implied that the conflict with the 1874 treaty was clearly seen and that a conscious precedent was being set"

Please write yours. --Keysanger (talk) 21:30, 5 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Look, you are devolping only one POV, and forgetting other POV. Arafael (talk) 21:44, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Tell me what are your reliable sources --Keysanger (talk) 21:48, 5 October 2009 (UTC)


 * You removed it! Arafael (talk) 21:57, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I write new text with NPOV. Do not remove it. Arafael (talk) 22:13, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Also you write { { uw-3rr } } tag in my page. Arafael (talk) 22:14, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

To NPOV
I try to dialog with Keysanger, we started ok; but he revert a new text, in order to reach NPOV. Arafael (talk) 21:31, 5 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Let's discuss first about the Bolivian tax in the previous section. Do not put again the POV tag before you have presented your claims and reliable sources. --Keysanger (talk) 21:35, 5 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I've presented 15 claims. Arafael (talk) 21:43, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

You copied the begining of 15 sentences. --Keysanger (talk) 21:47, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

if your concept of "reliable sources" exclude all peruvians and bolivians historians there is a problem, any single chilean historian know that these 15 points are controversial, show all your cards and let us do the same, we are not talking about personal opinions Rasdar2 (talk) 21:55, 5 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Keysanger also exclude chilean authors whom do not agree with him like Patricio Valdivieso and Luis Ortega Martínez. Arafael (talk) 22:25, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Unacceptable Sourcing

 * Relaciones Chile-Bolivia-Perú: La Guerra del Pacífico. Patricio Valdivieso. Ponitificia Universidad Catolica de Chile. Pag 8: "Para Querejazu esto era legal, ya que se trataba de un contrato entre un particular y el gobierno sobre el patrimonio nacional y para que tuviera."
 * Not in English referencing standards. FirstnameAuthor  LastnameAuthor.  Title [translated title].  Location: Publisher, Year, [page].  Ie:  Patricio Valdivieso ''Relaciones Chile-Bolivia-Perú: la Guerra del Pacífico. [Relations of Chile, Bolivia, Perú: the War of the Pacific]. [Location missing:] Poitificia Universidad Catolica de Chile, [year missing], 8.
 * Quotes should be rendered In English. Quotes should either be in the article body, or not in the article-space.  Try Talk:War of the Pacific/Sources with translated quotes if you need to info dump them somewhere.
 * Chile en ruta al capitalismo: cambio, euforia y depresión 1850-1880. Luis Ortega Martínez. Pag 437. : Por ello la decision de la Asamblea Nacional de Bolivia de febrero de establecer el impuesto de los 10 centavos como condicion para la aprobacion del contrato de transaccion entre la Compania y el gobierno boliviano el 27 de novimebre de 1873...Dicho documento aun no habia sido ratificado por algun organismo legislativo de aquel pais, problema que en el caso de que iniciase una disputa legal, podia debilitar el caso de la empresa.
 * Again. English order.  Location.  Year of Publication.  The name of the publisher.
 * Quotes in English.
 * Poor English grammar in sections added. Do you know how much characterisation (trying to express honestly the bias in the works referenced) in English comes down to word order and verb selection? Fifelfoo (talk) 00:27, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
 * John Edwin Fagg "Latin America: a general history‎" page 860
 * Not acceptable due to the high degree of edit warring here: non specialist history. 860 pages with one author?  I doubt it.  Where's the press and location and date?
 * If you are going to cite these kinds of works, it'd have to be in a specific historiography section, where you can quote their opinions, "Fagg and others (date) believe that the perfidious army of Antarctic Penguins caused the war."
 * Steve J. Stern "Resistance, rebellion, and consciousness in the Andean peasant world" page 241
 * Good looking source due to specialisation. Not in references section.  Lacks publisher, location, year.
 * John Lawrence Rector "The history of Chile" page 102
 * Publication data please.
 * Chilean newspaper "La Patria" october 28th "Era necesario llevar al Perú la única guerra posible, la guerra del exterminio vengador y de la muerte... la situación requiere que llevemos sin vacilación la guerra..."
 * Primary source. No article title listed, no publication place listed, no english translation of quoted text.

I am seriously getting tired of this. Please look at the first two letters of the website? Do you see "en"? I do. Fifelfoo (talk) 00:27, 6 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I have a question Fifelfoo. Keysanger has these little comments in the citations, such as this (Source 94 as of this current revision: ): "The unaccounted variable in this equation is the consolidating predisposition of Peruvians to quickly direct themselves against Chile should problems arise." Is this acceptable sourcing? I ask this because I've never seen it done before in any of the articles I have read.-- MarshalN20 | T a l k 02:28, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
 * This is not standard sourcing behaviour on wikipedia. Quotes should be part of the body text if they support the article.  If quotes are required by other editors for verification, but don't improve the article, its my belief they should be hosted on a sub-page of talk, two examples of this: 1) Quotes in a foreign language / verification material in a foreign language... it needs translation for English verification, into a Talk:/subpage.  2) Books out of print and hard to acquire.  This should not be an element of this article.  Additionally there's one further time I personally quote in a reference, and that's when I'm using a non-paginated online reference, where you'd need to search by the starting words of a paragraph to find the citation in a (say, 40 screen length) document.  Ie:  "Fifelfoo. (untitled talk comments on War of the Pacific). Wikipedia. Accessed 10/2009:  §Unacceptable Sourcing ¶This is not standard sourcing..."  Quotes are very, very, very occasionally used in footnotes of high quality featured articles on history, but they certainly aren't formatted as blockquotes. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:40, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

About the quote of chilean newspaper "La Patria", source: "Mariano Felipe Paz Soldan "Historical Narration of the war of Chile against Peru and Bolivia" Vol. 2 page 247" acording to Sater peruvian and bolivian politics "forced" Chile to continue the war, but it public opinion said another thing, El Mercurio de Valparaíso december 1 (1880): "To get a peace with Peru, is indispensable reduce it to complety impotence, for a period of 50 years at less" La Patria June 30 (1880) "revenche, revenche claim today the child and the old man, the warrior and the priest... In Chile there isnt any other sentiment, other expresion, other wish than these Revenche! the chilean cannon must take down the walls of Ancón, the bullets from Chile must get in ruins the mansions of the impudic Chorrillos" Who is the victim and who is the agresor is the eternal question in any war of history, maybe peruvian press said something similar in 1880 but, however, the article must be neutral. The real, undoubtly, and neutral cause of the continue of war was the fail of the Lackawanna Conference. (but keysanger made a mistake with the dates and the chronological order putting it in 1879). Dont said now that chilean press are not a valid source for the public opinion in Chile after the campaign of Lima. The other source is from John Lawrence Rector professor of history at Western Oregon University, "Aunque no entra en detalles ...entrega toda la información histórica básica...y lo hace en una perspectiva objetiva y ponderada. Un libro sin duda recomendable." Cristian Gazmuri profesor de la Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile -> "although he doesnt enter in details...give all the historic basic informacion... and make it by an objective and ponderate perspective. A, without doubt, recomendable book. Cristian Gazmuri. Rasdar2 (talk) 02:10, 7 October 2009 (UTC)


 * For Newspapers from the time (Year x to 1900) The Chilean press are not a "Reliable Source" within the meaning of wikipedia for sourcing a historical article. The Peruvian press are not a "Reliable Source" within the meaning of wikipedia for sourcing a historical article.  The Bolivian press are not a "Reliable Source" within the meaning of wikipedia for sourcing a historical article.  The Times is not a "Reliable Source" within the meaning of wikipedia for sourcing a historical article.  All four presses are Primary Sources.  Rector (2003) is a barely adequate source for a historical article, why?  Look up the Series introduction on Google books.  The intended audience is a lay audience, and its a summary of actual scholarship.  But barely adequate is good enough, he meets the minimum criteria of academic history (that he's an academic publishing in a commercial publisher).  Just remember than when citing him regarding contested interpretations (for instance, the legality of this or that act, or who started which war) to attribute.  Rector believes, "Foo"


 * "Peru and Bolivia forced Chile to continue the war..." (part II) here another secondary source: "THE INFLUENCE OF DOMESTIC POLITICS ON AMERICA'S CHILEAN POLICY DURING THE WAR OF THE PACIFIC" by Jason Zorbas, School of Graduate Studies, Laurentian University Sudbury, Ontario 2000, article host in National Library of Canada. "The chilean public demanded that Lima be taken. Bloodlust ran high, as some of the press demanded that the Moneda (the chilean equivalent to white house) ""exterminate the enemy the same as Great Britain and Argentina had annihilated the Zulus and the Indians."" The govermnment struggled to satisfy the public demands for invasion. During the last months of 1880, the Chilean armed forces prepared for the invasion, and as the new year came into being, the Chilean forces were posed outside Lima and prepared to invade the capital"  page 22. Rasdar2 (talk) 15:19, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Primary vs. Secondary Sourcing; Keysanger Judging Sources
There seems to be a problem regarding primary vs. secondary sourcing. I see two main roots to this problem. The first is Keysanger's policy to judge which source, whether primary or secondary, is acceptable or not. For example, Diego Barros Arana is a primary pro-Chilean source, and yet Keysanger freely uses him for at least 3 citations. He does not allow this for Clements Markham, Tomas Caivano, and other sources which could be beneficial for the article. I say "could" because primary sources are always difficult to use in any sort of article seeking to create a NPOV with reliable references. This leads to the second root of the problem, which is that some of you seem to not have read WP:PRIMARY. I quote part of it here (but still encourage you to read the page):

''Primary sources that have been reliably published (for example, by a university press or mainstream newspaper) may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. Without a secondary source, a primary source may be used only to make descriptive claims, the accuracy of which is verifiable by a reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge. For example, an article about a novel may cite passages from the novel to describe the plot, but any interpretation of those passages needs a secondary source. Do not make analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims about information found in a primary source.''

I hope this helps clear up the problem.-- MarshalN20 | T a l k 03:01, 6 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Precisely my friend, Primary sources must not be discarded per-se, and now I bring an example here, for one of the controversial points about the War of the Pacific: Its causes, and surprisingly, it was'nt the Ten Cents affair exclusively, and I'm going to cite an paragraph writed for José Manual Balmaceda, Minister of Foreign Relations of the Republic of Chile, in a circular dated December 24, 1881 conserved in the Memoria de Relaciones Exteriores, page 53; published in Chile in the year of 1882:


 * "'...El territorio salitrero de Antofagasta y el territorio salitrero de Tarapacá fueron la causa real y directa de la guerra...'"


 * Here is the Truth, and I don't remember who says than truthness it does'nt matters, only reliability of the sources, and that is a huge mistake, History is a defined as the search of the truth, and this article is about an important part of the History of two nations, and must be not only realiable, but accurated and above all, REAL. Here is a primary source than cannot be denied as false, because is an statement, a declaration from a high functionary of the Chilean government which had enough authority for speak fos his country. Greetings.--Cloudaoc (talk) 20:59, 6 October 2009 (UTC)


 * The problem with this falls around the question of "What is truth?" and how can anybody be sure that what the primary source states is true. I also believe that this is the truth, and that the whole cause of the war was Chilean ambition over Peruvian and Bolivian saltpeter territory. However, this statement by Balmaceda does not go beyond what he considers a fact (In simpler words, his opinion). As a result of this, if Balmaceda is used in the article, the sentence would have to start along the lines of (though not exactly) "According to Jose Manuel Balmaceda, blah blah blah." My main point being, can you find a reliable secondary source that backs this statement up? In such a case, with two sources certifying the same thing, the "According to..." would no longer be necessary and the concept could be simply presented as a sourced statement. Or, at least that's the way I'd see it (I may be wrong).-- MarshalN20 | T a l k 21:26, 6 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I'll think than you are a little radical about the primary sources, your interpretation of the lines written by Balmaceda is than they express "his opinion", but sir, don't forget the context, he isn't a mere spectator or a low-level functinary, he was the Minister of Foreign Relations and write that circular as such, not as Jose Manuel Balmaceda. And that circular is an official document part of the Memories of the Chilean Ministery of Foreign Affairs of 1882, is QUITE relevant because his is expressing the position of the Chilean Goverment about that issue. And you my friend is who is issuing an opinion on the subject, not Balmaceda. But I'll agree than this line must be used with care and properly, of course. Greetings.--Cloudaoc (talk) 21:59, 6 October 2009 (UTC)


 * There's a reason why we don't use Primary sources, and this is it. Find an academically published historian who feels the war started due to "A", cite them, Jones believes, "A".  Find an academically published historian who feels the war started due to "B", cite them, Smith believes, "B".  Better yet, find a review article in a historical peer reviewed journal, "Causes of the War of the Pacific: a literature review" or the like.  This kind of review article will examine the field of debate, and give weight to different positions based on their presence in the academic literature.  "Bloggs sees the academic literature is fragmented by nationalist histories, attempting to establish competing national myths."  Fifelfoo (talk) 00:57, 7 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Wait a minute, the line extracted from the 1882 Memories of the Chilean Ministery of Foreign Affairs this was writted by one of the main protagonists of the events of this article, how we can ignore this? It doesn't matters what believes one or another author, we must use their research to find a balanced middle-point crossing all the sources as possible, because the facts resulting of this crossing are the most-common accepted version of that events. And that's all. That's why we must be careful to choose a source, because statements like "the confiscation of the books" are unacceptable, we must use the proper words for the proper facts, not euphemisms. If an army committed a crime of lesa-humanidad (the destruction of San Juan, Chorrillos and Miraflores) or "lesa-civilizacion" (the ransack and alienation of the cultural patrimony of the Peruvian nation) this acts must be named as such. Greetings. --Cloudaoc (talk) 04:30, 8 October 2009 (UTC)


 * We can ignore it because it is a primary source, and Wikipedia is not a scholarly, academic historian, publishing in a press where scholarly, academic historians will review Wikipedia's work and bite its head off in book reviews if we mischaracterised the 1882 Memoirs of a Chilean Minister. The job of creative narratives and analyses from primary sources is that of a secondary source.  Wikipedia is an encyclopedia.  Encyclopedias are tertiary sources.  If you write, out of primary sources, you are conducting original research.  Do not rely on primary sources when constructing this article. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:09, 9 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I still agree with Fifelfoo in this matter. If you want to include primary sources in the article, then there really is not much I can do to stop you. I'm not Keysanger, and I'm most certainly not going to be deleting sources or preventing you to include information that such sources define as correct. The only time I delete sourced material is when such material does not fit the source; and even to that point I try to re-incorporate the source (if it's reliable) and paraphrase it in the right way. Nevertheless, take into account what Arafael has done. He found perfectly reliable secondary sources that can be used in the article without any problem.-- MarshalN20 | T a l k 13:03, 7 October 2009 (UTC)


 * My friend, I know than you aren't Keysanger, the sources than Arafael added are effectively reliable and are a great contributtion to this article, but they are not enough to ignore or drop all primary sources. If you detect the improper use of a primary source, you are free to correct or even removed, I'll personally trust in your judge and good faith, and I`ll expect than you do that, even for my contributions, because perhaps I'm wrong, and I'm not get angry against you or start an useless text-fight. This is not my article and I must trust in the editors who are taken some of their valuable time to spend in the search for the truth, just as me. Greetings. --Cloudaoc (talk) 04:30, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Sources in English referencing standards
Patricio Valdivieso. Relations of Chile, Bolivia, Perú: the War of the Pacific. Santiago: Pontificia Universidad Catolica de Chile. June 2004, Page 8.
 * 2nd other POV. (list has 15)
 * In this context, the [Bolivian] Congress studied the contract that had been signed with the Saltpeter Company in February of 1878, and ratified this transaction under the condition that the Company paid 10 cents per quintal of saltpeter exported. For Querejazu this was legal because it was a contract between an individual and the government regarding national patrimony, and in order to have validity should have the approval of the [Bolivian] legislature, as provided in the Bolivian Constitution.
 * En este contexto, el Congreso estudió la transacción que se había firmado con la Compañía de Salitres, en febrero de 1878, y ratificó esta transacción a condición de que la Compañía pagara 10 centavos por quintal exportado de salitre. Para Querejazu esto era legal, ya que se trataba de un contrato entre un particular y el gobierno sobre el patrimonio nacional y para que tuviera validez debía contar la aprobación del poder legislativo, como lo disponía la Constitución boliviana.

Luis Ortega Martínez. Chile en route to capitalism: change, euphoria and depression 1850-1880. Santiago: Research Center Diego Barros Arana. Management of archives, libraries and museums of Chile (Centro de Investigaciones Diego Barros Arana. Direccion de archivos, bibliotecas y museos de Chile). 2005. Pag 437
 * Therefore the decision of the National Assembly of Bolivia in February to establish the tax of 10 cents as a condition for approving the transaction agreement between the [Saltpeter] Company and the Bolivian government on 27 november, 1873 ... Said document had not yet been ratified by any legislative body of that country (Bolivia), a problem that, in the case of the initiation of a legal dispute, would weaken the Company's case.
 * Por ello la decisión de la Asamblea Nacional de Bolivia en febrero de establecer el impuesto de los 10 centavos como condición para la aprobación del contrato de transacción entre la Compania y el gobierno boliviano el 27 de noviembre de 1873...Dicho documento aun no había sido ratificado por algun organismo legislativo de aquel país, problema que en el caso de que iniciase una disputa legal, podía debilitar el caso de la empresa.

Arafael (talk) 14:54, 6 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I think these meet the standard of good reliable sources. Moreover, they present the important idea that the Bolivian government saw their tax increment as perfectly legal. Why is it important? Obviously, because if the matter is left as an "illegal" tax increase, then there is a preference given to the Chilean position in the war. By presenting both point of views, then a better understanding of the matter comes into play.-- MarshalN20 | T a l k 15:49, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Please review gramar. Arafael (talk) 16:30, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Valentín Abecia Baldivieso. International relations in the history of Bolivia, Volume 2. La Paz: National Academy of Sciences of Bolivia (Academia Nacional de Ciencias de Bolivia). 1986. Page 73.
 * 3rd other POV. (list has 15)
 * But in reality no such declaration of war took place. The decree (Hilarion Daza's decree) to which this characteristic [of declaring war] is attributed only alludes that "Chile has indeed invaded the national territory," stipulating that "all commerce and communication with the Republic of Chile is cut for the duration of the war that [Chile] has promoted upon Bolivia." He later speaks that Chileans should vacate the country given deadlines in cases of emergency and taking action on property belonging to them. Therefore, it is not correct to attribute that Decree the characteristics of a declaration of war, because it was not. The steps taken were for personal security in regards to an act consumed by Chile with its taking of Antofagasta. On April 3 the declaration of war by the Chilean Congress was approved, and by the 5th it became known throughout the press.
 * Pero en realidad no hubo tal declaratoria de guerra. El decreto al que se le atribuye esa caracteristica solamente alude a que "Chile ha invadido de hecho el territorio nacional", disponiendo que "queda cortado todo comercio y comunicación con la República de Chile mientras dure la guerra que ha promovido a Bolivia". Luego habla de que los chilenos deben desocupar el territorio nacional dando plazos en casos de excepcion y tomando medidas sobre las propiedades que les perteneciera. Por consiguiente, no es correcto atribuir a ese Decreto las características de una declaratoria de guerra, no lo fue. Las medidas adoptadas fueron de propia seguridad ante un hecho consumado por Chile con la toma de Antofagasta. El 3 de abril se aprobó la declaración de la guerra por el Congreso chileno y el 5 se conocía a través de la prensa.

Arafael (talk) 16:30, 6 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Excellent findings. Okay, I will edit the grammar of your English translations based on your request.-- MarshalN20 | T a l k 16:43, 6 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Please rewrite on them. Arafael (talk) 16:50, 6 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I edited this section with improved English. It is truly astounding that this competing view essentially takes away Chile's reason for declaring war (Under this view, Chile began a war of conquest, not a war of defense which is what Chile regularly claims).-- MarshalN20 | T a l k 17:07, 6 October 2009 (UTC)