![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 5 | ← | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | Archive 13 | Archive 14 | Archive 15 |
Hi Alex, Cloudaoc, MarshalN20,
Up until now I made only few edits of the article page, I have preferred to discuss the most striking flaws of the article in the talk page first and get an agreement about before edit. My edits have been the maintenance of the warnings tag {{
multiple issues}}
, the implementation of agreements from the talk page, and some edits to correct some evident errors.
I believe that edit wars are the most stupid art to improve an article. Hence, when I made a change and it is reverted, then I open an issue to discuss the case. It doesn't mean that I am a second class editor who is not allowed to edit the page. We all, Alex, Cloudac, MarshalN20, Keysanger and all the others, have the same rights to edit the article.
Two weeks ago I decided to contribute to the article with 4 important edits:
I raised 25 issues to the article, I provided sound rationale for my cases and I have accepted to negotiate about my views and sometimes accepted that my views were not well founded. I never began a edit war about your changes and I discussed every thing in the talk page. So, I think I have contributed to improve the article and I respected your rights.
I ask you now to respect my rights to edit the article. It doesn't mean that my edits are perfect. If you find it is better another solution then be bold and revert my edits. But if I post it again than let it there and raise a issue to the talk page, don't insist to delete my contribution. It is not vandalism.
Now, you have the choice. I will reinsert my contributions and if you think that my help is not needed then delete it, I will delete this page from my watchlist and you can go on editing the article as you like it.
--Best regards, Keysanger ( what?) 08:54, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
Keysanger, can you please explain why the section subtitles are necessary for the "Background" section?-- MarshalN20 | Talk 23:22, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
The section War of the Pacific#Alliance Peru-Bolivia of the the article [1] asserts that:
The given reference [ [2] doesn't support the sentence. The author is unknown his work is a general history book and, as stated by Alex, our article wants to describe the events at a closer level of detail.
Neither Sater nor Farcau talk about the "copy of the treaty" although the argued that Chile knew about the treaty. But to argue is not to demostrate.
--Best regards, Keysanger ( what?) 12:29, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
There is a long standing discussion about the neutrality, verifiability and encyclopedic worth of the subordinate clause [Miguel Grau] "(known as the "Knight of the Seas" due to his chivalry)". The Discussion can be seen in Talk:War_of_the_Pacific#Issue_10:_Grau. Best regards, Keysanger ( what?) 14:21, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
Statements from involved editors
On 21 May 1879, during the Battle of Iquique the Huáscar sank the Esmeralda and ended Chile's blockade of the Peruvian port. Meanwhile, while chasing away the Covadonga, the Peruvian Independencia wrecked near the shallow coastal waters of Punta Gruesa. The naval battle of Iquique gave a tactical victory to Peru: the blockade was defeated and one Chilean ship was sunk and the other retreated. Nevertheless, it was a pyrrhic victory; losing the Independencia, one of Peru's most important ships, was a fatal blow. When news of the defeat reached Santiago, the Esmeralda's crew and commander Arturo Prat became national heroes for their bravery. Captain Miguel Grau's decision to save shipwrecked Chilean sailors and send his formal condolences to Prat's wife earned him widespread recognition to all sides of the conflict, dubbing him the "Gentleman of the Seas".
"We see that the Knight of the Seas (Grau) is much better than a dead in combat (Prat), he is a hero only in Chile. Grau is "of the seas"."--Keysanger
Yes, Wikipedia articles should help the readers learn more about the topic, but not presents partial views as neutral views. As the Cloudac's list show, only Peruvian books call him a "caballero". And that must also must readers learn more about the topic. I added "in Peru" to finish the issue. --Best regards, Keysanger ( what?) 18:57, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
Before any more comments are made, this is the current version of the text in question:
Grau's gallantry during the conflict, especially his treatment of Prat's family and rescue of Chilean sailors in Iquique,[37] gained him widespread recognition as the Caballero de los Mares ("Knight of the Seas").[38][39] His notability upheld Peruvian morale in the early stages of the conflict as,[40] despite being outnumbered, his monitor Huáscar held off the Chilean navy for six consecutive months.
Best regards.-- MarshalN20 | Talk 03:47, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
Hi, there is a huge mistake in the pharagraph about the battle of Chorrillos. There wasn't 30,000 Chileans against 10,000 Peruvians at this action, there were 23,200 Chileans facing 18,000 Peruvians, both data according to [1] and [2]
{{
citations missing}}
, {{
POV}}
The current version [9] states without any references that:
That is a very personal and biased view of the matter. Fact is that Peru signed the (offensive or defensive) Pact with Bolivia in 1873, and in 1872 Peru had declared that "Peru cannot be indifferent to the occupation of Bolivian territories" (Farcau, p.37-38). Moreover, Peru had nationalized the Salitreras and looked to build a monopol over the salitre and guano. --Best regards, Keysanger ( what?) 10:27, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
End of story.-- MarshalN20 | Talk 15:40, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
There exists a difference between Peruvian interests and actual Peruvian involvement. I may be interested in music, but that does not make me a musician. I may be interested in knowing what goes on in your head, but that does not mean I am actually conducting a psychological analysis on you.-- MarshalN20 | Talk 13:22, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
{{
POV}}
The current version [10] of the article states that:
The article doesn't mention that the 10 cents were a clear violation of the treaty of 1874. --Best regards, Keysanger ( what?) 10:35, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
{{
POV}}
, {{
Weasel words}}
The current version [11] of the article states that:
I cite from WP:EDITORIALIZING:
Both sentences are true ("Previous Peruvian…" and "Peru hold a…"). But the quality of the Peruvian army wasn't an impediment for Peru to went to war, therefore the "however" is a weasel word.
--Best regards, Keysanger ( what?) 07:44, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
The Chilean government stalled, suspecting that Peru's attempt was not bona fide, and that it was only trying to delay until it completed its war preparations. Previous Peruvian demands had favored Bolivia, and Lavalle denied knowing about the existence of the treaty, which discomfited the Chileans. However, not only did Peru hold a poorly equipped military, but also faced a financial crisis which prevented the possibility of any war preparations.
Chile stalled negotiations suspecting that Peru's attempt was not bona fide. The Chilean public saw Peruvian mediation as favorable to Bolivia, and were discomfoted by Lavalle's denial of an alliance treaty with Bolivia. Chile thought Peru was only trying to delay time until it completed its war preparations. However, Peru held a poorly equipped military and faced a financial crisis which prevented the possibility of any war preparations.
Problem solved?-- MarshalN20 | Talk 04:45, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
Proposal:
Chile stalled negotiations suspecting that Peru's attempt was not bona fide. The Chilean public saw Peruvian mediation as favorable to Bolivia, and were discomfoted by Lavalle's denial of an alliance treaty with Bolivia. Chile thought Peru was only trying to delay time until it completed its war preparations.
However, Peru held a poorly equipped military and faced a financial crisis which prevented the possibility of any war preparations.
However produce implications not supported by the source and there is a special section to compare belligerents armies. --Best regards, Keysanger ( what?) 14:40, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
Supporting sources for my proposal
These are pretty clear, I suppose?-- MarshalN20 | Talk 15:59, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
{{
POV}}
Regarding the current version of the article [12], the mutual defense pact was called "mutual defense pact" but the historians deiagree about its character defensive or offensive. Hence, the article has to say the difference and in no case present the pact as defensive. --Best regards, Keysanger ( what?) 12:05, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
Regarding the current version of the article [13], the so-called treaty of mutual defense was secret and the article has to state this fact. --Best regards, Keysanger ( what?) 12:05, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
The secret Alliance is a very complicated issue, hence I created a new sub-section with 3 paragraphs. I hope that will help us to find a solution. --Best regards, Keysanger ( what?) 07:53, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
my edits on this section is also being edited out and labeled as vandalism. regrettably by the same person over and over again. To repeat again, im editing in good faith, im just mentioning the authors on the treaty section, im NOT altering the context, i find the lack of transparency about where the sources come from very disturbing and for me being personally chastised very obnoxious-- IggyAU ( talk) 22:42, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
Regarding your edits in this part of the article, you fail to notice that not everyone mentioning Chile's knowledge of the treaty is Peruvian. Hence, your claim that "Peruvian authors such and such" is erroneous. Given this situation, Ian's revertions are actually justified. Please analyze the sources before making edits to the article. Best regards.-- MarshalN20 | Talk 17:03, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
This should be placed in a trivia section: The USS Wachusett (1861) commanded by Alfred Thayer Mahan, was stationed at Callao, Peru, to protect American interests during the war's final stages. Mahan formulated his concept of sea power while reading history in an English gentlemen's club in Lima, Peru. This concept became the foundation for his celebrated The Influence of Sea Power upon History.[113][114] 84.23.155.84 ( talk) 19:43, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
Which is hereby done. 84.23.155.84 ( talk) 19:48, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
I never read such name for the secret alliance between Peru and Bolivia. It is pure WP:OR That has nothing to do with the War of the Pacific, what is after the war?, 1885? 1905? 1955?. --Best regards, Keysanger ( what?) 16:56, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
Nonetheless, Chile, ... knew. This is presented as a fact. It is not. It is a conjecture. --Best regards, Keysanger ( what?) 16:56, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
No where in the paragraph appears that Argentina was informed and invited to joint the pact against Chile. It must be said. --Best regards, Keysanger ( what?) 16:56, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
Nowhere is stated about the Bolivian declaration of war that is a fact in all history books, except 2 or 3 Peruvians and Bolivians books. --Best regards, Keysanger ( what?) 16:56, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
@Ian above, the article has already been updated so I'm marking this as "resolved" as you say. @Keysanger, if you decide to raise your RFC please create a new thread for it (as you would have to do anyway). This discussion - as all parties agree aside from Keysangers - has well and truly run its course. Alex Harvey (talk) 15:38, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
The article tries to present the pre-war situation in words of peace and cooperation. There were strong contrary interests between Peru, Bolivia and Chile. Before and during the war, Peru feared that Bolivia could move to the Chilean side. Peru wanted to control the whole commerce of guano and salpeter and, hence they nationalized the salitreras and wanted the help of Bolivia to control the price of the products. That is one of the reasons given by Sater in the contribution I did and was deleted. Please, read again what you deleted. --Best regards, Keysanger ( what?) 16:56, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
In reality, Peru declared the casus confederis. --Best regards, Keysanger ( what?) 16:56, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
The article states that
Most of the information about the repaso seems to come from one source, i've added the author's name to the small piece just to add some clarity about how genuine these claims are, i know there's been an edit war about this issue, -- MarceloPR ( talk) 10:03, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
has there ever been any documentaries or movies about this war? If so, can someone kindly list them please-- Chelios123 ( talk) 09:00, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
Frist revert was with summary "Writing several names in the introduction is not constructive". The names in question are widely known alternate names af the war. MarshalN20' deletion of them is hardly an improvement. The second revert was with even more stange explanation: "Please read WP:RDR". I fail to see how WP:RDR justified deletion of non-trivial useful information. I am waiting for an explanation of this deletion stated 'clearly, so that a meaningful discussion can happen.
I left the following message in the user's talk page, which he chose to disanswer. "An editor since 2008 (and a proffessional historian, as you claim) should understand how important is to mention all possible names, especially for less-than pop topics, i.e., other than pokemon and pornstars. This is vital in search for information, especially if one starts search from poorly translated or even foreign sources. Also, I am baffled with your understanding of the term "constructive". Not to say that you reverted to a verison with a misleading wikipipe." The wikipipe in question is for saltpeter-> Potassium nitrate, which is false. But it requires to know the subject to notices this: Chile is mining Sodium nitrate. Locador ( talk) 17:39, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
I can't find "Salitre" in the dictionary ( [15]), so I still don't see how you can call it a "perfect English word." You can leave if you want to; I honestly don't care (why does everyone make a big deal about their departure from a voluntary project? If you're getting paid, I'd like to get in on the fun! hahaha). In any case, the point here is that etymology is there to explain the names of the conflict. All the cool kids have it (like World War I). Regards.-- MarshalN20 | Talk 01:48, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
Discussion unrelated to improving the article War of the Pacific |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Per WP:TALK and as this thread no longer involves discussing how to improve the article War of the Pacific, it would be best if editors either 1) let it drop per WP:STICK, 2) continue discussing the matter on private user talk pages, or 3) take any important issues they feel are unresolved to either Wikipedia:Wikiquette assistance (preferably) or Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents (if they feel administrator intervention is necessary). If anyone would like to post something new concerning how to improve this article, please start a new section for others to take a look at. Regards, AzureCitizen ( talk) 00:25, 28 February 2012 (UTC) |
{{
cite check}}
There are a lot of unnedded references, for example:
Perhaps I am wrong but no one disputes such facts. I think we should erase such references. --Best regards, Keysanger ( what?) 09:54, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
Since this "issue" is not clearly defined by the editor who started it, I'm going to declare it resolved for lack of purpose and arguments. Greetings.-- Ian (CloudAOC) | Talk 16:19, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
Why have you listed this as unresolved? Why do you want to erase references?-- MarshalN20 | Talk 14:20, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
Nowhere is said that Peru was not obligated to declare the causus federis, that president Prado didn't want the war and taht he was bulldozed to the war by the Peruvian populace and politicians. --Best regards, Keysanger ( what?) 16:56, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
The whole paragraph presents the setcret treaty as a harmless alliance, but in reality the treaty was one of the causes of the war and during the Lackawamma conference Peru and Bolivia refused to deactivate the pact. It must be said that Chile saw pact as a aggressive one. --Best regards, Keysanger ( what?) 16:56, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
Extended content
|
---|
This is the continuation of the issue 10, unresolved. For this issue I raised a RfC brought some feedback from the community (see RfC issue 10): For inclusion
For exclusion
Wikipedia is not a democracy, but as the case "BDoW" shows, sometimes is the only way to resolve cases where consensus can't be reached. I plead for a complete delete of the funny sentences about Grau's chavalry. By the way, I have been also always against the inclusion of glorification of heros, also of Prats, Abaroa, Grau and many others who die for his ideas. In my personal opinion, it is a very reduced view of historical facts, this apotheosis works always for some political ideas, mostly nationalism. But this is my personal opinion, please don't include it in the WP. --Best regards, Keysanger ( what?) 11:53, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
The stuff with "gallantery", "valenty", "chavalry", etc has been deleted. Version [26] is a consensus version regarding Grau's description. --Best regards, Keysanger ( what?) 15:22, 2 April 2012 (UTC) |
In the lede there is no mention that the 10 cents tax was completly illegal. That is confirmed by Sater and Farcau. --Best regards, Keysanger ( what?) 16:56, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
Someone has tagged this article as: neutrality is disputed. No arguments are offered, why should the tag remain? 84.23.155.84 ( talk) 19:37, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
I reinserted the tag. The issues must be cleared first. --Best regards, Keysanger ( what?) 10:53, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
The tag is neccesary as long as the article doesn't represent a neutral point of view according to the Wikipedia rules. The reader has to be warned about striking disruption of neutrality.--Best regards, Keysanger ( what?) 16:15, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
Hi Coludac,
It is not enough that YOU say there are no problems. Wikipedia is a cooperative work and you should hear the other opinions before you close an issue. For example:
Did you considered that nowhere in the article is mentioned the part of Peru tht drove to war?. Lavalle in his report about the mediation says it clearly: "all forces in Peru wanted the war". Why dont you consider that? . --Best regards, Keysanger ( what?) 12:07, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
Let's see the question in a systematic way:
Now, let's decide wich one should be the first issue to resolve?. --Best regards, Keysanger ( what?) 10:25, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
Ian, please be so kindly and don't remove or change the {{
unresolved}}
tag without the agreement of the editor who put it in. Thanks in advance, --Best regards,
Keysanger (
what?)
10:40, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
I would suggest to focus on the Peruvian mediation. Its flaws are appalling: biased, original research, weird wording, unreferenced. If you agree, I will present a proposal with a new wording according to the WP rules. Do you?. --Best regards, Keysanger ( what?) 11:05, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
{{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |accessdate=
(
help)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 5 | ← | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | Archive 13 | Archive 14 | Archive 15 |
Hi Alex, Cloudaoc, MarshalN20,
Up until now I made only few edits of the article page, I have preferred to discuss the most striking flaws of the article in the talk page first and get an agreement about before edit. My edits have been the maintenance of the warnings tag {{
multiple issues}}
, the implementation of agreements from the talk page, and some edits to correct some evident errors.
I believe that edit wars are the most stupid art to improve an article. Hence, when I made a change and it is reverted, then I open an issue to discuss the case. It doesn't mean that I am a second class editor who is not allowed to edit the page. We all, Alex, Cloudac, MarshalN20, Keysanger and all the others, have the same rights to edit the article.
Two weeks ago I decided to contribute to the article with 4 important edits:
I raised 25 issues to the article, I provided sound rationale for my cases and I have accepted to negotiate about my views and sometimes accepted that my views were not well founded. I never began a edit war about your changes and I discussed every thing in the talk page. So, I think I have contributed to improve the article and I respected your rights.
I ask you now to respect my rights to edit the article. It doesn't mean that my edits are perfect. If you find it is better another solution then be bold and revert my edits. But if I post it again than let it there and raise a issue to the talk page, don't insist to delete my contribution. It is not vandalism.
Now, you have the choice. I will reinsert my contributions and if you think that my help is not needed then delete it, I will delete this page from my watchlist and you can go on editing the article as you like it.
--Best regards, Keysanger ( what?) 08:54, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
Keysanger, can you please explain why the section subtitles are necessary for the "Background" section?-- MarshalN20 | Talk 23:22, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
The section War of the Pacific#Alliance Peru-Bolivia of the the article [1] asserts that:
The given reference [ [2] doesn't support the sentence. The author is unknown his work is a general history book and, as stated by Alex, our article wants to describe the events at a closer level of detail.
Neither Sater nor Farcau talk about the "copy of the treaty" although the argued that Chile knew about the treaty. But to argue is not to demostrate.
--Best regards, Keysanger ( what?) 12:29, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
There is a long standing discussion about the neutrality, verifiability and encyclopedic worth of the subordinate clause [Miguel Grau] "(known as the "Knight of the Seas" due to his chivalry)". The Discussion can be seen in Talk:War_of_the_Pacific#Issue_10:_Grau. Best regards, Keysanger ( what?) 14:21, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
Statements from involved editors
On 21 May 1879, during the Battle of Iquique the Huáscar sank the Esmeralda and ended Chile's blockade of the Peruvian port. Meanwhile, while chasing away the Covadonga, the Peruvian Independencia wrecked near the shallow coastal waters of Punta Gruesa. The naval battle of Iquique gave a tactical victory to Peru: the blockade was defeated and one Chilean ship was sunk and the other retreated. Nevertheless, it was a pyrrhic victory; losing the Independencia, one of Peru's most important ships, was a fatal blow. When news of the defeat reached Santiago, the Esmeralda's crew and commander Arturo Prat became national heroes for their bravery. Captain Miguel Grau's decision to save shipwrecked Chilean sailors and send his formal condolences to Prat's wife earned him widespread recognition to all sides of the conflict, dubbing him the "Gentleman of the Seas".
"We see that the Knight of the Seas (Grau) is much better than a dead in combat (Prat), he is a hero only in Chile. Grau is "of the seas"."--Keysanger
Yes, Wikipedia articles should help the readers learn more about the topic, but not presents partial views as neutral views. As the Cloudac's list show, only Peruvian books call him a "caballero". And that must also must readers learn more about the topic. I added "in Peru" to finish the issue. --Best regards, Keysanger ( what?) 18:57, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
Before any more comments are made, this is the current version of the text in question:
Grau's gallantry during the conflict, especially his treatment of Prat's family and rescue of Chilean sailors in Iquique,[37] gained him widespread recognition as the Caballero de los Mares ("Knight of the Seas").[38][39] His notability upheld Peruvian morale in the early stages of the conflict as,[40] despite being outnumbered, his monitor Huáscar held off the Chilean navy for six consecutive months.
Best regards.-- MarshalN20 | Talk 03:47, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
Hi, there is a huge mistake in the pharagraph about the battle of Chorrillos. There wasn't 30,000 Chileans against 10,000 Peruvians at this action, there were 23,200 Chileans facing 18,000 Peruvians, both data according to [1] and [2]
{{
citations missing}}
, {{
POV}}
The current version [9] states without any references that:
That is a very personal and biased view of the matter. Fact is that Peru signed the (offensive or defensive) Pact with Bolivia in 1873, and in 1872 Peru had declared that "Peru cannot be indifferent to the occupation of Bolivian territories" (Farcau, p.37-38). Moreover, Peru had nationalized the Salitreras and looked to build a monopol over the salitre and guano. --Best regards, Keysanger ( what?) 10:27, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
End of story.-- MarshalN20 | Talk 15:40, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
There exists a difference between Peruvian interests and actual Peruvian involvement. I may be interested in music, but that does not make me a musician. I may be interested in knowing what goes on in your head, but that does not mean I am actually conducting a psychological analysis on you.-- MarshalN20 | Talk 13:22, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
{{
POV}}
The current version [10] of the article states that:
The article doesn't mention that the 10 cents were a clear violation of the treaty of 1874. --Best regards, Keysanger ( what?) 10:35, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
{{
POV}}
, {{
Weasel words}}
The current version [11] of the article states that:
I cite from WP:EDITORIALIZING:
Both sentences are true ("Previous Peruvian…" and "Peru hold a…"). But the quality of the Peruvian army wasn't an impediment for Peru to went to war, therefore the "however" is a weasel word.
--Best regards, Keysanger ( what?) 07:44, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
The Chilean government stalled, suspecting that Peru's attempt was not bona fide, and that it was only trying to delay until it completed its war preparations. Previous Peruvian demands had favored Bolivia, and Lavalle denied knowing about the existence of the treaty, which discomfited the Chileans. However, not only did Peru hold a poorly equipped military, but also faced a financial crisis which prevented the possibility of any war preparations.
Chile stalled negotiations suspecting that Peru's attempt was not bona fide. The Chilean public saw Peruvian mediation as favorable to Bolivia, and were discomfoted by Lavalle's denial of an alliance treaty with Bolivia. Chile thought Peru was only trying to delay time until it completed its war preparations. However, Peru held a poorly equipped military and faced a financial crisis which prevented the possibility of any war preparations.
Problem solved?-- MarshalN20 | Talk 04:45, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
Proposal:
Chile stalled negotiations suspecting that Peru's attempt was not bona fide. The Chilean public saw Peruvian mediation as favorable to Bolivia, and were discomfoted by Lavalle's denial of an alliance treaty with Bolivia. Chile thought Peru was only trying to delay time until it completed its war preparations.
However, Peru held a poorly equipped military and faced a financial crisis which prevented the possibility of any war preparations.
However produce implications not supported by the source and there is a special section to compare belligerents armies. --Best regards, Keysanger ( what?) 14:40, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
Supporting sources for my proposal
These are pretty clear, I suppose?-- MarshalN20 | Talk 15:59, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
{{
POV}}
Regarding the current version of the article [12], the mutual defense pact was called "mutual defense pact" but the historians deiagree about its character defensive or offensive. Hence, the article has to say the difference and in no case present the pact as defensive. --Best regards, Keysanger ( what?) 12:05, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
Regarding the current version of the article [13], the so-called treaty of mutual defense was secret and the article has to state this fact. --Best regards, Keysanger ( what?) 12:05, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
The secret Alliance is a very complicated issue, hence I created a new sub-section with 3 paragraphs. I hope that will help us to find a solution. --Best regards, Keysanger ( what?) 07:53, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
my edits on this section is also being edited out and labeled as vandalism. regrettably by the same person over and over again. To repeat again, im editing in good faith, im just mentioning the authors on the treaty section, im NOT altering the context, i find the lack of transparency about where the sources come from very disturbing and for me being personally chastised very obnoxious-- IggyAU ( talk) 22:42, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
Regarding your edits in this part of the article, you fail to notice that not everyone mentioning Chile's knowledge of the treaty is Peruvian. Hence, your claim that "Peruvian authors such and such" is erroneous. Given this situation, Ian's revertions are actually justified. Please analyze the sources before making edits to the article. Best regards.-- MarshalN20 | Talk 17:03, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
This should be placed in a trivia section: The USS Wachusett (1861) commanded by Alfred Thayer Mahan, was stationed at Callao, Peru, to protect American interests during the war's final stages. Mahan formulated his concept of sea power while reading history in an English gentlemen's club in Lima, Peru. This concept became the foundation for his celebrated The Influence of Sea Power upon History.[113][114] 84.23.155.84 ( talk) 19:43, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
Which is hereby done. 84.23.155.84 ( talk) 19:48, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
I never read such name for the secret alliance between Peru and Bolivia. It is pure WP:OR That has nothing to do with the War of the Pacific, what is after the war?, 1885? 1905? 1955?. --Best regards, Keysanger ( what?) 16:56, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
Nonetheless, Chile, ... knew. This is presented as a fact. It is not. It is a conjecture. --Best regards, Keysanger ( what?) 16:56, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
No where in the paragraph appears that Argentina was informed and invited to joint the pact against Chile. It must be said. --Best regards, Keysanger ( what?) 16:56, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
Nowhere is stated about the Bolivian declaration of war that is a fact in all history books, except 2 or 3 Peruvians and Bolivians books. --Best regards, Keysanger ( what?) 16:56, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
@Ian above, the article has already been updated so I'm marking this as "resolved" as you say. @Keysanger, if you decide to raise your RFC please create a new thread for it (as you would have to do anyway). This discussion - as all parties agree aside from Keysangers - has well and truly run its course. Alex Harvey (talk) 15:38, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
The article tries to present the pre-war situation in words of peace and cooperation. There were strong contrary interests between Peru, Bolivia and Chile. Before and during the war, Peru feared that Bolivia could move to the Chilean side. Peru wanted to control the whole commerce of guano and salpeter and, hence they nationalized the salitreras and wanted the help of Bolivia to control the price of the products. That is one of the reasons given by Sater in the contribution I did and was deleted. Please, read again what you deleted. --Best regards, Keysanger ( what?) 16:56, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
In reality, Peru declared the casus confederis. --Best regards, Keysanger ( what?) 16:56, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
The article states that
Most of the information about the repaso seems to come from one source, i've added the author's name to the small piece just to add some clarity about how genuine these claims are, i know there's been an edit war about this issue, -- MarceloPR ( talk) 10:03, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
has there ever been any documentaries or movies about this war? If so, can someone kindly list them please-- Chelios123 ( talk) 09:00, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
Frist revert was with summary "Writing several names in the introduction is not constructive". The names in question are widely known alternate names af the war. MarshalN20' deletion of them is hardly an improvement. The second revert was with even more stange explanation: "Please read WP:RDR". I fail to see how WP:RDR justified deletion of non-trivial useful information. I am waiting for an explanation of this deletion stated 'clearly, so that a meaningful discussion can happen.
I left the following message in the user's talk page, which he chose to disanswer. "An editor since 2008 (and a proffessional historian, as you claim) should understand how important is to mention all possible names, especially for less-than pop topics, i.e., other than pokemon and pornstars. This is vital in search for information, especially if one starts search from poorly translated or even foreign sources. Also, I am baffled with your understanding of the term "constructive". Not to say that you reverted to a verison with a misleading wikipipe." The wikipipe in question is for saltpeter-> Potassium nitrate, which is false. But it requires to know the subject to notices this: Chile is mining Sodium nitrate. Locador ( talk) 17:39, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
I can't find "Salitre" in the dictionary ( [15]), so I still don't see how you can call it a "perfect English word." You can leave if you want to; I honestly don't care (why does everyone make a big deal about their departure from a voluntary project? If you're getting paid, I'd like to get in on the fun! hahaha). In any case, the point here is that etymology is there to explain the names of the conflict. All the cool kids have it (like World War I). Regards.-- MarshalN20 | Talk 01:48, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
Discussion unrelated to improving the article War of the Pacific |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Per WP:TALK and as this thread no longer involves discussing how to improve the article War of the Pacific, it would be best if editors either 1) let it drop per WP:STICK, 2) continue discussing the matter on private user talk pages, or 3) take any important issues they feel are unresolved to either Wikipedia:Wikiquette assistance (preferably) or Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents (if they feel administrator intervention is necessary). If anyone would like to post something new concerning how to improve this article, please start a new section for others to take a look at. Regards, AzureCitizen ( talk) 00:25, 28 February 2012 (UTC) |
{{
cite check}}
There are a lot of unnedded references, for example:
Perhaps I am wrong but no one disputes such facts. I think we should erase such references. --Best regards, Keysanger ( what?) 09:54, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
Since this "issue" is not clearly defined by the editor who started it, I'm going to declare it resolved for lack of purpose and arguments. Greetings.-- Ian (CloudAOC) | Talk 16:19, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
Why have you listed this as unresolved? Why do you want to erase references?-- MarshalN20 | Talk 14:20, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
Nowhere is said that Peru was not obligated to declare the causus federis, that president Prado didn't want the war and taht he was bulldozed to the war by the Peruvian populace and politicians. --Best regards, Keysanger ( what?) 16:56, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
The whole paragraph presents the setcret treaty as a harmless alliance, but in reality the treaty was one of the causes of the war and during the Lackawamma conference Peru and Bolivia refused to deactivate the pact. It must be said that Chile saw pact as a aggressive one. --Best regards, Keysanger ( what?) 16:56, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
Extended content
|
---|
This is the continuation of the issue 10, unresolved. For this issue I raised a RfC brought some feedback from the community (see RfC issue 10): For inclusion
For exclusion
Wikipedia is not a democracy, but as the case "BDoW" shows, sometimes is the only way to resolve cases where consensus can't be reached. I plead for a complete delete of the funny sentences about Grau's chavalry. By the way, I have been also always against the inclusion of glorification of heros, also of Prats, Abaroa, Grau and many others who die for his ideas. In my personal opinion, it is a very reduced view of historical facts, this apotheosis works always for some political ideas, mostly nationalism. But this is my personal opinion, please don't include it in the WP. --Best regards, Keysanger ( what?) 11:53, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
The stuff with "gallantery", "valenty", "chavalry", etc has been deleted. Version [26] is a consensus version regarding Grau's description. --Best regards, Keysanger ( what?) 15:22, 2 April 2012 (UTC) |
In the lede there is no mention that the 10 cents tax was completly illegal. That is confirmed by Sater and Farcau. --Best regards, Keysanger ( what?) 16:56, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
Someone has tagged this article as: neutrality is disputed. No arguments are offered, why should the tag remain? 84.23.155.84 ( talk) 19:37, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
I reinserted the tag. The issues must be cleared first. --Best regards, Keysanger ( what?) 10:53, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
The tag is neccesary as long as the article doesn't represent a neutral point of view according to the Wikipedia rules. The reader has to be warned about striking disruption of neutrality.--Best regards, Keysanger ( what?) 16:15, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
Hi Coludac,
It is not enough that YOU say there are no problems. Wikipedia is a cooperative work and you should hear the other opinions before you close an issue. For example:
Did you considered that nowhere in the article is mentioned the part of Peru tht drove to war?. Lavalle in his report about the mediation says it clearly: "all forces in Peru wanted the war". Why dont you consider that? . --Best regards, Keysanger ( what?) 12:07, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
Let's see the question in a systematic way:
Now, let's decide wich one should be the first issue to resolve?. --Best regards, Keysanger ( what?) 10:25, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
Ian, please be so kindly and don't remove or change the {{
unresolved}}
tag without the agreement of the editor who put it in. Thanks in advance, --Best regards,
Keysanger (
what?)
10:40, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
I would suggest to focus on the Peruvian mediation. Its flaws are appalling: biased, original research, weird wording, unreferenced. If you agree, I will present a proposal with a new wording according to the WP rules. Do you?. --Best regards, Keysanger ( what?) 11:05, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
{{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |accessdate=
(
help)