Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/War of the Pacific/Workshop

A comment on photographs
An interesting point has been raised in the Workshop page about photography and paintings; the question asks which one depicts "the real war". I believe, based largely on my academic experience (especially since a friend of mine is working on a dissertation related to this matter), that the question is itself wrong. Neither photographs nor paintings (nor any other sort of media, e.g. films) depict the "reality" of a particular event or individual; these are all images created through the lens (point of view) of a particular person (or institution). The purpose of the images is to make the viewer see what the artist saw (at the moment, through memory, or simply envisioned), but it is never going to depict reality at its fullest. Therefore, the photographs should not be considered to depict a "reality" that is more real than the paintings.

Imposing the use of Chilean photographs in the article is yet another way that Keysanger has skewed the material in favor of Chile. His photographs impose the vision of victorious Chilean soldiers burying dead Bolivians in mass graves, highlight Chilean supremacy through the officer on horseback in front of dead Peruvians, and also victimizes Chileans by showing their wounded and sick. According to Keysanger, these photographs are "the real war" not like the "romantic, nationalistic, which glorifies war or violence" pictures that he removed. However, the truth is that these photographs do exactly what Keysanger claims he is opposing; they glorify the victor's conquest.

Not only that, but they are also poor illustrations that don't help the reader understand the conflict. For example, Alfred Thayer Mahan was in Callao during the war, and was influenced by the conflict's naval campaign when he developed his theory on The Influence of Sea Power upon History. Yet, the article has not a single image on the naval campaign (in spite of there being several paintings that could help illustrate this for the reader).-- MarshalN20 ✉🕊 10:57, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Content
I also would like to make the Committee aware that I do not plan on responding to the content-related allegations made by Keysanger. As far as I understood Euryalus (and please do correct me if I am wrong), this is not the place to continue beating each other with sticks over the content. However, if requested by the Committee, I can certainly provide further references and citations related to the content. However, I do please kindly ask that you let me know in advance as my schedule is very busy at the moment with coursework and other whatnot.-- MarshalN20 ✉🕊 18:55, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
 * You are correct that we will not make any decisions on which versions of the article were correct, etc. However some content-related conduct issues are under our purview: misuse of sources, POV-pushing, etc. GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:38, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Racism
Just to be clear, after reading this, that I haven't accused Keysanger of being racist. On the other hand, this user has (during the course of this arbitration case) been the one to openly accuse me of being a racist and a fascist.-- MarshalN20 ✉🕊 18:04, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Atrocities Committed During the War of the Pacific
I'm not entirely sure where is the best place to post this information, but I've noticed for a while that Keysanger raised complaints about my citing of material related to the atrocities committed during the War of the Pacific. He claims that the sources that I used did not justify the information (in fact, he deleted most of the information that I had provided under the pretense that they were unreliable, Peruvian sources). Well, what I wanted to show to the Committee is a paragraph from a review of Sater's Andean Tragedy by the Chilean Manuel Fernandez-Canque (from the Arturo Prat University, in Iquique):

"Sater rightly labels the conﬂict a tragedy; the atrocities committed justify the label. The incongruence between the tiny number of wounded and the large number of dead ﬁnds an answer in the ‘cold-blooded butchery practiced among the wounded on the battleﬁeld’ by Chilean soldiers and their corvo knives. In most cases Chileans justiﬁed this brutal behaviour as retaliation for Peru’s use of mines. On the other hand, Peruvian troops in the Highlands ‘liked cutting oﬀ the heads of Chilean soldiers ... to decorate the entrance to their villages’ and ‘mutilat[ing] sexually the Chilean wounded and dead’. In the Chilean defeat at La Concepcion, besides exterminating all soldiers, Peruvian troops stripped and cut to pieces the Chilean cantineras in the main square of the village. The event was followed by brutal Chilean retaliation in the surrounding Indian villages."

The underlined text is what the sources in Spanish name the repase (or repaso), meaning the practice by which Chilean soldiers killed the wounded Peruvians in the battlefield. If you read the current text in the article as written by Keysanger, none of these atrocities appear. Instead, we learn about the expulsion of Chileans from Peru, "enslaved" Chinese coolies in Peru, among other points that focus solely on Peruvian actions. So, since above mentions that the Committee is evaluating POV-pushing and misuse of sources by the parties, I hope that this information helps the Committee with their decision.-- MarshalN20  ✉🕊 05:24, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

My 2 cents
I have no doubt that I have contributed with sufficient facts (diffs) to support my claims. I added the most striking cites (colored) and explained my criticized edits. It costs me time to find the right wording for more abstracts concepts and relationships and I assume that it is for you an ordeal to read and understand what I write. Hence, I ask you: In other words, I neither want to martyr you with my English nor learn more judicial English. I think that the rest of the work must be done by the Arbitration Committee. Am I right?. -- Keysanger (talk) 10:26, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Principles: Must I propose some new principles to you?. I found in Arbitration/Requests/Case/Manning naming dispute, under "Principles" the precepts "Equality and respect", "Casting aspersions", and "Advocacy" which fit very well to our case but I am reluctant to copy&paste it because it is more of the same. And surely we can add other precepts. But in my opinion the five pillars of Wikipedia are enough for any person who want to do the right thing: Do it and read the talk page. Think about what they say. Correct it, if needed.
 * Finding of facts: Must I assign to a diff the breached rule?. I guess you know it better than I.
 * Remedies: It is the second time that the Arbitration Committee deals with the same case.


 * thanks for the message: you've certainly added your share of the evidence, and there's no obligation on you to propose anything to the committee from here. We look at what is suggested in the workshop, and it can be a useful aid to drafting the outcome, but we will certainly add or subtract from it ourselves going forward. So while it can be helpful to use relevant diffs to demonstrate your claims, you don't have to do alll the work and can leave it with us to sort through.


 * Mildly, while the topic area is somewhat similar to the Argentine History case the collection of evidence is noticeably different; as outlined in the case scope, we will look at the older evidence but stuff that is very old will carry a bit less weight than newer material. There are diffs in the evidence going back to 2009, and I don't see them as particularly relevant to the issues of today. That's not to say they shouldn't have been provided, just that we're seeking first and foremost to resolve the current dispute.


 * Lastly, your English is fine. In passing it's a public holiday here later this week, so I will use that time to go through the evidence one more time, and may have a couple of questions to post. -- Euryalus (talk) 11:15, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Extension of workshop closing time
By the direction of a drafting arbitrator, the workshop will remain open until the proposed decision is posted in this case. For the Committee, Kevin ( aka L235 ·&#32; t ·&#32; c) 02:32, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks Kevin. Ahead of the question, the PD delivery date is unchanged, this just runs the workshop through the two-week deliberation period. -- Euryalus (talk) 02:51, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Much appreciated, Kevin. I am also grateful for the opportunity that the Committee is possibly allowing for any questions.-- MarshalN20 ✉🕊 04:05, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Ongoing abuse
Why must I continue to endure the false accusations and baiting ("But in order not to confuse MarshalN20 we continue to talk about Chile and Peru as monolithic entities") of the opposing party? I look forward to the end of all this slandering.-- MarshalN20 ✉🕊 01:27, 26 January 2017 (UTC)


 * I'll answer your question about St. John on Monday afternoon; I have urgent job-related matters to attend to in the meantime. I do, nonetheless, want to point out that I am dismayed by the ongoing hostility from the other party. isn't just "some editor"; he's a long-time respected member of our community. Also disappointing is seeing that I am ridiculed for being civil (having even been mock-named as a "civil POV pusher"), while the other party is apparently allowed an infinite amount of leeway to bark and bite anyone. Instead of being stopped, a policy of appeasement is applied to this aggressive party. I also find it insulting to have my academic honesty and quality placed on the same level as that of a user with a non-neutral agenda in a niche area and no evaluated content (Good-class, A-class, nor FA-class). I'm not demanding to be placed on a pedestal, but I do consider that we should all treat each other with cordiality and proper respect—and, most certainly, not appease bullies. Thank you.--- MarshalN20  ✉🕊 05:33, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Noted, thanks. -- Euryalus (talk) 05:54, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Updated deadlines
The Committee has directed that the workshop and proposed decision dates be extended by one week because of unfortunate delay. (Because that extends the workshop to today, I'll personally let workshop proposals be added for a few hours more.) Thanks, Kevin ( aka L235 ·&#32; t ·&#32; c) 21:28, 31 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Thanks, Kevin. Does that mean that the proposed final decisions are still a week away?-- MarshalN20 ✉🕊 22:07, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's correct. Thanks, Kevin ( aka L235 ·&#32; t ·&#32; c) 22:57, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Is the decision making process live? -- Iazyges   Consermonor   Opus meum  00:00, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, I haven't heard anything yet. I'll get back to you as soon as I can. Kevin ( aka L235 ·&#32; t ·&#32; c) 14:49, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

IP, English, logic, back to Formal Mediation

 * I observe that some user has taken MarshalN20's accusations against me without any proof as true and proposed several sanctions against me.

MarshalN20 accused me of text manipulation citing "persuasive evidence linking Peru to either the ten centavo tax or Bolivia's decision to confiscate Chilean holdings in Antofagasta never surfaced" The complete cite is:
 * Ronald Bruce St John, The Foreign Policy of Peru, Lynne Rienner Publishers - Boulder and London, 1992, page 105
 * Black: cited by MarshalN20 in his Evidence Misuse of Sources, item 2
 * red : not cited by MarshalN20 in his Evidence Misuse of Sources, item 2
 *  Although persuasive evidence linking Peru to either the ten centavo tax or Bolivia's decision to confiscate Chilean holdings in Antofagasta never surfaced, it must be recognized that Peruvian interests had deep-seated economical and political reasons for going to war. At the end of the 1870s, the Peruvian government had a near-monopoly on the nitrate trade, and Bolivia's 1878 tax supported its position. In turn the consolidation of Chilean control over Antofagasta promised ruinous competition for Peru. 

How much knowledge of the history of the War of the Pacific is needed to understand that MarshalN20 has "cut" the whole sentence to produce the impression that he wanted, against the meaning given by the author?. Must I explain to the proposer how the English Language works?. Must I explain to him the function of the word "although" and the function of the coma after the word "surfaced"?. Please, help me, in German and Spanish it is easy to see that there is a text manipulation. Is in English too difficult to see it?.

Also this edit was cited by MarshalN20 against me (item 4), was done by a IP but it is used to justify a ban and block against me in the same part of MarshalN20's evidence. I am not this IP, I didn't do that. Why used the proposer this edit to condemn me?.

I consider that the proposer has never read carefully the accusations but he accepted it as proved and in he freed MarshalN20 from the accusation of text manipulation and accused me!. The two examples given above are clear and irrefutable and show how baseless are the accusations of MarshalN20 and how incomplete the proposer studied and understand it.

Also the proposal to send MarshalN20's text manipulation to RSN is infeasible: This investigation was triggered by the insults of MarshalN20 during the Formal Mediation and the proposer suggest to return to content resolution. I don't want to be insulted again by MarshalN20. This is a investigation about MarshalN20's personal behavior. The time for content dispute is over and will return when the personal dispute has been resolved. Moreover, the proposer writes about a interaction ban and simultaneously about RSN. How can it works?.

I am not going to explain again the causes of the investigation and I will answer only well founded proposals. I did my work in the Main case page, Evidence and Workshop. If the someone wants to cooperate, the text of the evidence and the workshop must be read and the basic syntax of the English Language must be understand.

My question is, will the Arbitration Committee accept MarshalN20's words simply as the truth without further questions or it will analyze MarshalN20's accusations against me in-depth?. -- Keysanger (talk) 00:00, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Issue one:, views please on how using the first part of the sentence but not the second accurately reflects the author's views. However (and this is a fundamental point in this case), there is sometimes a fine line between summarising sources and "manipulating" them; and as a statement of the obvious , resolving this can routinely be done via editorial consensus and assuming good faith. What this topic area really needs is more editors to help build that consensus process - hence my interest in the most recent proposals by Iazyges.
 * Issue two: absent any further evidence on the point, an edit by an IP in 2014 isn't going to have any bearing on the outcome of this case. Mildly, a great amount of the evidence presented by both parties dates back many years. This can be relevant in demonstrating a pattern of behaviour, but we only to the extent that it demonstrates a tendency in editing. We are not going to ivnestigate and rule on every single diff, and FWIW as $1⁄15$ of the committee my notes on the evidence already did rawls a line through about half the diffs provided to date as either irrelevant or way too old to have value as current evidence.
 * Issue three: I doubt RSN is a suitable venue for content mediation given the speciality of the topic area. I do like the idea of Milhist playing a role, but it would be dependent on the willingness of the co-ordinators and other editors involved there.
 * Issue four: for reference, the idea of interaction bans have been discussed. i'm personally not a fan of i-bans because a) they usually just perpetuate the dispute in different fora, and b) you two are among the most committed editors in this field, or possibly the most committed, and i-bans will bring further content work in this area to a shuddering halt. However you really do seem unable to work together, so the options remains alive at present.
 * Issue five: it's a sad reality of dispute resolution that the committee very rarely assumes anything is an objective truth without further questioning it. It's also unlikely that fifteen people, from various backgrounds, will either accept the same evidence or draw the same conclusions from it. Hopefully that's a consolation of sorts. -- Euryalus (talk) 01:04, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you, Euryalus. I am reassured by your answer.
 * In his apology (see below), MarshalN20 essentially says that St. John's dependent clause fits with his POV. He doesn't explain why concealing to the reader the independent clause should accurately reflect the author's views. A clear case of misuse and manipulation of sources. -- Keysanger (talk) 22:15, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Clarifying Ronald Bruce St. John
I want to first apologize for the delay in responding. My copy of the St. John book (Foreign Policy of Peru, 1992) was in my office. The urgent work that I had to attend to is, unfortunately, not yet finished (but I'll try to respond quickly to any further inquiries). After again carefully reading over the St. John book, I will present forth information here that will undoubtedly demonstrate the validity of my position and also show undeniable proof of how the other party (Keysanger) has engaged in source manipulation.


 * First, Keysanger's misuse of the source

The first step towards understanding the gravity of the misuse of the St. John source is acquiring a clear view of how Keysanger uses it in the article. This diff, shows that he uses St. John to support the idea that Peru had a Machiavellian plan to control all nitrates. I should be clear in stating that I am not opposed to this view being presented, so long as it is made clear that it is a Chilean perspective, deemed fringe by mainstream historians. This differs from Keysanger's intention to make this perspective the unchallenged, dominant narrative (purposefully misusing St. John towards that end, which corroborates what Alvaro Arditi indicates in the Spanish Wikipedia).


 * Second, Contextualizing St. John's view

The second step is understanding St. John's view on the causes of the War of the Pacific. This will help deconstruct the sentence in question. I've thoroughly read the book, and find that (in its 268 pages) St. John at no point indicates that Peru wanted to expand its nitrate monopoly into Bolivian or Chilean territories. St. John does certainly believe that the central cause of the war is economic (nitrates, to be specific), but he argues that this was a result of Chilean & European capitalists using the Chilean government as an instrument to acquire control over the Peruvian Tarapaca province:

"After independence, Peru exported increasing amounts of nitrates. As quantities increased and prices improved, the government began to view the nitrate resource as a partial solution to its financial difficulties. The first step toward nationalization of the industry occurred in 1873 when the congress approved formation of a government monopoly to purchase nitrate from local producers for resale in Europe. Originating in the Peruvian congress, the monopoly was appropriate at the time because the internal financial situation and the current budget deficit dictated a search for new revenues. It later became impractical, when falling prices made it impossible to guarantee returns to producers. Realizing that the deepening financial crisis called for a more radical solution, the Pardo administration in 1875 nationalized a large part of the nation's nitrate reserves. Through nationalization, the government hoped the industry could be regulated to provide a more regular and predictable source of income. The 1875 nationalization of nitrates had important international repercussions: it antagonized the Chilean and European capitalists who dominated much of the industry in southern Peru. These dispossessed owners remained intent on regaining their properties, and various European associations were organized for that purpose. One of the objectives of such organizations was to remove the province of Tarapaca from the Peruvian monopoly, and the former owners proved willing to lend their support to Chile for this purpose. Disaffected stockholders also lobbied against the Peruvian purchase of European armaments at the same time that they were assisting Chile to obtain military supplies. Aided by such support, Chile grew stronger militarily while the relative military might of both Peru and Bolivia declined."

To recap, St. John considers that Peru established a state monopoly in 1875 (within its borders) and that this fueled the anger of European & Chilean capitalists, who then aided Chile in taking control of Peru's Tarapaca province. On the other hand, Keysanger would have you believe that Peru was attempting to control all nitrates (outside its borders too) and that, under this Machiavellian plan, Peru was seeking to expand its control into Bolivia and Chile. These are two radically different views of the war: St. John sees the ambition of capitalists and Chile as the driving force of the war; but Keysanger claims it is Peru the country that had the ambition for war.

It is important to understand the difference in both views, because it shows that Keysanger is distorting the argument of St. John in order to make him appear to be favorable to his own perspective. This is exactly why Alvaro Arditi states that Keysanger de-contextualizes the sources, manipulating them to fit his POV.


 * Third, deconstructing the sentence

To address the matter on the sentence and its meaning, we need to immerse ourselves into the entire section and paragraph in which the sentence appears. Keysanger only presents to you part of a paragraph, again de-contextualizing the entire meaning of the paragraph, the section, and St. John's entire argument. Let's first look at St. John's view of the situation; in it, he considers that Peru entered a state of desperation, both attempting to defend itself and also prevent the outbreak of war by disavowing its treaty with Bolivia.

"The Chilean occupation of the Bolivian littoral found the Peruvian government woefully unprepared for war. Most of its warships were in drydock or badly in need of repairs and army units were scattered throughout the country. The general lack of military preparedness was aggravated by ongoing financial difficulties and the high level of political unrest that had obtained since 1876. In a difficult situation, the Prado administration adopted a two-pronged strategy. On the one hand, it accelerated preparations for war by speeding up repairs on its ships and moving some troops south toward Iquique. Jose Francisco Canevaro, a Peruvian agent in Europe, was also hurriedly dispatched to Rome in a belated effort to buy ironclads. At the same time, the Peruvian government endeavored to avoid hostilities by urging Bolivia and Chile to find a peaceful settlement. When Serapio Reyes Ortiz arrived in Lima on February 16, 1879, he was told that the Peruvian government considered the 1873 treaty null and void. Officials of the Prado administration argued that the 1873 treaty was no longer active because Bolivia had concluded its 1874 treaty with Chile without first notifying Peru, as it was required to do under the terms of the 1873 agreement. As Peru worked to forestall an outbreak of general hostilities, it continued its efforts to derail the Serapio Reyes Ortiz mission by refusing to discuss the 1873 treaty."

Keysanger would have you believe that Peru had a determined plan to acquire control over all the nitrate fields in this part of South America. However, St. John demonstrates that Peru was in panic and disarray, bankrupt and unarmed, and actually was attempting to avoid the conflict with Chile and Bolivia. There was no Machiavellian master plan; such a view is fringe.

With this in mind, let's now look at the paragraph in question:

"As the antagonists resorted to arms, the central role in the dispute played by nitrates clarified. In a circular to the Santiago diplomatic corps, the Chilean government accused Peru of fomenting the dispute between Bolivia and Chile to eliminate competition for the Peruvian nitrate monopoly. Although persuasive evidence linking Peru to either the ten-centavo tax or Bolivia's decision to confiscate Chilean holdings in Antofagasta never surfaced, it must be recognized that Peruvian interests had deep-seated economic and political reasons for going to war. At the end of the 1870s, the Peruvian government had a near-monopoly on the nitrate trade, and Bolivia's 1878 tax supported its position. In turn, the consolidation of Chilean control over Antofagasta promised ruinous competition for Peru. Peruvian also remained concerned that Bolivia, if left alone, might ally with Chile and despoil Peruvian nitrate fields in Tarapaca. On the other hand, the Chilean government looked to Peruvian nitrates to indemnify itself for the expense of the war. Continuing its efforts to detach Bolivia from Peru, Santiago hoped to trade Bolivian incorporation of the Peruvian provinces of Tacna and Arica for Chilean sovereignty over the littoral between the 23rd and 24th parallels as well as the coastal region north of the Loa River. This Chilean policy of Peruvian dismemberment, which first surfaced in 1866, marked a radical change from Chile's general insistence since 1835 on the status quo along the Pacific coast of South America."

The first aspect of the paragraph that is important to acknowledge is that St. John very clearly states that it is the Chilean government (the one he previously accuses of being an instrument of the European & Chilean capitalists) that makes the accusation of Peru fomenting the Chile-Bolivia dispute to benefit its nitrate monopoly. St. John makes this highlight to the reader on purpose. On the other hand, Keysanger presents this Chilean allegation as an unchallenged truth.

The second aspect to analyze is the green part of the sentence in question. St. John never supports the idea that Peru was controlling Bolivia's actions. In fact, as St. John previously indicated to the reader, Peru was not at all prepared for Bolivia's actions. St. John also provides a different explanation to reason behind the ten cents tax:

"Suffering from Melgarejo's financial mismanagement and currency debasement as well as the effects of the worldwide depression, the Bolivian economy was in a parlous state when Hilarion Grosole Daza took office in 1876. Unfortunately, the municipal authorities in Antofagasta, Bolivia's main nitrate port, soon needed additional funds to repair the damage caused by the earthquake and tidal wave that struck the Bolivian coast in May 1877. Desperately searching for revenues to prop up his government, Daza pledged to exploit the nation's desert wealth. When the city council of Antofagasta asked the Bolivian government for permission to levy a tax of ten centavos per hundredweight on all nitrates exported by the Antofagasta Nitrate and Railroad Company, the Daza administration, on February 14, 1878, authorized the tax. At the time, not one member of the city council was Bolivian; and over 80 percent of the population of Antofagasta was Chilean, with less than 10 percent being Bolivian. The new tax, which was to supersede all other taxes, was in reality only slightly higher than the rate the company had been previously paying. Although the ten-centavo tax obviously conflicted with the terms of the 1874 treaty with Chile, the official stand of the Antofagasta government, a position supported by the Daza administration, was that the new assessment was an internal affair that did not affect Chile".

Considering the above quote (and other quotes), it makes absolutely no sense to claim (as Keysanger does) that the blue (second) part of the sentence is contradicting the green (first) part. Keysanger mocks ("Must I explain to the proposer how the English Language works?"), when Keysanger happens to be the one completely misunderstanding everything (whether by mistake or on purpose, I can no longer tell at this point).

The blue (second) part of the sentence mentions economic and political interests. What are these interests? Based on the entire reading, St. John makes the case that Peru's political interest was in retaining Bolivia as an ally (rather than face war with a combined Chile-Bolivia alliance). As for the economic interest, St. John at no point indicates that this is because Peru wanted to expand its state monopoly; instead, he argues throughout this part of the book that Peru solely wanted to defend its nitrate monopoly. According to St. John, Peru correctly feared that Chile's intention was to conquer Peruvian nitrate deposits; St. John also contends that Peru feared Chile's conquest of the Bolivian nitrate fields would lower the price of nitrates ("ruinous competition") to the detriment of Peru's monopoly, and such an outcome was also unfavorable.

St. John would never argue that Peru was ever on the offensive, because that would make his entire argument null.

I hope that this helps clear up matters. I apologize if this is a much longer response than expected, but this entire upsetting matter needed clarity. Many things can be said about me and my behavior, but I will never allow my academic honesty to be questioned or insulted without giving a proper, thorough response. Thank you.-- MarshalN20 ✉🕊 19:18, 6 February 2017 (UTC)


 * St. John's sentences and paragraphs do not exist in a vacuum. What I have done is demonstrated the context and its relationship to the content under analysis. St. John's argument can also be placed in conversation with other authors. Chilean scholars Cruz and Cavallo bluntly indicate that the idea that Peru wanted to expand its state monopoly is a Chilean perspective; moreover, they point out that the problem with this view is that Chilean historiography has avoided explaining the mechanisms of how this alleged monopoly expansion plan would function ("No dice Bulnes que es el 'todo' que le hace 'creer' en semejante maquinacion. Pero le interesa subrayar mas las razones--el estanco--que los mecanismos, como ocurre con frecuencia en la historiografia chilena cuando este punto es tocado."). This criticism is important because the political chaos and crisis (coups, caudillos) in Bolivia and (to a lesser extent) Peru, makes it very unlikely that either country actually had such a massive economic plan. This also explains why Robert N. Burr calls this Peruvian monopoly expansion "an alleged conspiracy" (By Reason or Force, p.138).-- MarshalN20  ✉🕊 01:38, 7 February 2017 (UTC)


 * I hope that this made sense to everyone, but understand if the length seems overwhelming. I can further summarize the points if necessary. Please do let me know, . I'm also about to head back to my office, so I can answer any other question you might have about any particular author. Thanks-- MarshalN20 ✉🕊 15:29, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Clarifying Carlos Contreras
Another author that deserves some clarification is the Peruvian historian Carlos Contreras. Contrary to what Keysanger may have you believe, Contreras has consistently made it clear that the expansion of the Peruvian nitrate monopoly is a Chilean perspective. Here is yet another evidence of this, from the book Historia del Peru Contemporaneo (page 163):

"After the conflict unleashed, with the Chilean occupation of the Bolivian litoral, Peru sided with Bolivia; whether it be to comply with the Treaty of 1873, according to Peruvian historiography; or because it also ambitioned the saltpeter in Bolivian territory, hoping to reconstruct its idealized fertilizer monopoly, according to the Chilean historiography."

Contreras is always clear in labeling the differences in the two historiographies, similar to what is done by the Chilean historians Cruz and Cavallo. Contreras also explicitly indicates in Historia Minima that the Peruvian expansion of its nitrate monopoly is a Chilean view. The other party tries to completely change Contreras' views by de-contextualizing his argument.

Why does Keysanger misinterpret sources? If we assume good faith, then it's because he is doing it by mistake (which is a serious sign of incompetence). If we don't assume good faith, then it's because he is doing it on purpose.

I don't think that Keysanger is incompetent. He is very much aware of his actions and has, for nearly a decade, gotten away with manipulating the opinions of authors to promote the Chilean POV (and fringe views) as the sole, mainstream. Several users have attempted to report this to AN/I, several mediations have been attempted to resolve the matter, and—yet—here we still are debating what to do with this situation.

What more proof is needed to finally end this problem?-- MarshalN20 ✉🕊 04:13, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Belatedly noted. In passing the PD is complete in draft absent a couple of diffs to illustrate the points. It should be posted shortly. Apologies for the delay - we were distracted by a couple of other issues and (in my case at least) some rl busyness. -- Euryalus (talk) 01:22, 15 February 2017 (UTC)


 * It's totally understandable. The most scarce (and, therefore, valuable) resource is time. I sincerely thank you and the rest of the Committee for using your valuable time to help resolve this matter.-- MarshalN20  ✉🕊 18:05, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
 * For info the PD is done, needs a couple more diffs inserted to further illustrate a specific point. However it is after midnight here so I am leaving this until tomorrow. Sincere apologies again for the delay, especially as this is not an especially complicated case. -- Euryalus (talk) 13:29, 17 February 2017 (UTC)