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 1 | ← | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 |
Hi, I have volunteered as a neutral mediator per the wp:medcab request filed by MarshalN20. First off, I would like to know if everyone that is involved with this agrees to participate in the mediation. Please indicate so after your name.
Extended content
|
---|
If there are any other interested parties, please add your name and whether you agree or disagree with mediation. I'm not here to take sides, just to try to help you all work it out. Does everyone also agree with framing the question as such: "Was the Peru-Bolivia alliance defensive or offensive?" Please comment below if you disagree that that is the issue. Gigs ( talk) 02:02, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
What comes after this? Should we discuss the matter here or will you, Gigs, create a specific section were you'll monitor the discussion?-- //[*]MarshalN20[*]\\ ( talk) 19:52, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
There is a difference:
The first statement implies the dynamic of interpretation, opportunities and posibilities given by the pact and the circumtances, the second doesn't allow an alternative. I am thinking of the proverb Attack is the best means of defense. I attach great importance to state that both interpretations (defensive/offensive) are posible and of importance for the involved countries and therefore the sentence it was a defensive pact cann't be used. We have to say, like in Venezuela and Hitler-Stalin Pact regarding the official names "bolivarian Republic" and "non-aggression pact" the neutral one officially titled. -- Keysanger ( talk) 21:03, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
Marshal: There can be no dynamic change for a defensive alliance/treaty that had no other use than that. Keysanger: What kind of use, defensive or offensive?. We know that some historians maintain a different view than your. And Wikipedia's source are historians and not opinions of wikipedians. Marshal:The defensive alliance/treaty came into effect only after Chile declared war on Peru and Bolivia. Keysanger: That says nothing about the question defensive or offensive. Hitler invaded Russia 1941 and the Pact is still (2009) officially titled "non-aggression pact". Marshal: Where's the "interpretation" there? Keysanger: That is your personal opinion: The defensive alliance/treaty came into effect …. You again try to explain us why the Pact is defensive. We have to work with sources. Your explain is WP:OR -- Keysanger ( talk) 23:35, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
http://www.quepasa.cl/medio/articulo/0,0,38035857__147601895__1,00.html
Manifest of the Chilean government to the representatives of friendly powers with reference to the declaration of war against Peru. Alejandro Fierro Chilean Ministry of Foreign affairs, Santiago April 12, 1879
The New York times - Current History (1922)
And then these are from Chilean sources. Yes, even some Chileans agree that the Peru-Bolivia defensive alliance was officially defensive (Not just "titled" defensive):
I've read your last paragraph (your last sentence to be more correct). That's the issue I'm still discussing. The treaty/alliance was officially defensive throughout its existance. I think that by this point everyone agrees that Chile perceived the alliance and treaty as a menace. However, perceptions are not answers for the verifiable truth. For instance, here's a thought experiment:
In this story, it should be accepted that the color blind man sees the blue as gray. However, it should be noted that the room was officially blue. This is exactly the same thing going on with the Peru-Bolivia defensive alliance:
The sources provided that claim the Peru-Bolivia alliance to be an offensive-defensive alliance are incorrect. If it is established that the Peru-Bolivia alliance is defensive, why is it correct for them to change the meaning of a document to their liking? Both the actions Peru took and the document itself are not offensive. The http://www.congreso.gob.pe/ntley/Imagenes/LeyesXIX/1866144.pdf Peru-Chile offensive-defensive alliance] stands as a point of comparisson. Not only is the Peru-Chile alliance "officially titled" offensive-defensive, but it is also officially used as an offensive-defensive alliance. Similarly, not only is the Peru-Bolivia alliance "officially titled" defensive, but it is also officially used as a defensive alliance.-- //[*]MarshalN20[*]\\ ( talk) 23:15, 17 July 2009 (UTC) Example of a real Offensive-Defensive Alliance User:Arafael provided me with a real example of a true "Offensive-Defensive" Alliance: In 1866, Peru and Chile signed an offensive-defensive alliance.-- //[*]MarshalN20[*]\\ ( talk) 21:11, 17 July 2009 (UTC) The Peru-Bolivia Defensive Alliance has nothing in common with a real "Offensive-Defensive" alliance. Which leads me once again to say: Chile saw the Peru-Bolivia alliance as a menace, but what they saw should not be taken as an "official" fact of the document. The official document of the Peru-Bolivia alliance certifies that the alliance was officially defensive. And, of course, that's not my original research; I have provided plenty of sources that also agree that the alliance was defensive. I'll go search for more if I have time.-- //[*]MarshalN20[*]\\ ( talk) 21:11, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
Please, help me to follow you. You wrote:
Who is the blind man? ( ????? ) Who are the painters? (…Peru and Bolivia, the "painters,…") Who are the Non-color blind people? (Reliable sources demonstrate that people agree …) Please, help me and answer: Who is the blind man? Do you think it is neutral to considerer Chile blind and Peru in health? -- Keysanger ( talk) 00:48, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
|
Since there doesn't seem to be agreement over the framing of the issue, I'd like you each to describe the issue, as you see it, as a short question that is 15 words or less. Please don't reply to or rebut other users framing of the question just yet. If you can't make the 15 word cutoff, that's OK, just keep it as short as possible. Gigs ( talk) 13:25, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
Extended content
|
---|
My position is rather simple;
If there are reliable sources that the treaty was defensive, then that should be included in the article. On the other hand if there are realible sources stating that the treaty was iterpreted, seen or thought as other than defensive then that should be also included. By balancing POV's from all sides we'll reach a NPOV. In other words, the issue (in my opinion) is mainly about sources and NPOV.
Sources issue We first have to establish what we have reached, that became diffuse after my discussion with Marshal. I hope we agree that there are enough reliable sources for both sides. "The treaty was defensive" and "the treaty was offensive and defensive" and "the treaty was interpreted as offensive by the Chilean government" or similar. Likeminas, Marshal and Keysanger (me) agree that if such sources exists they have to be presented to the reader. I think there is concordance about. To let the sources unpublished would be an attempt against the Wikipedia. Start issue The second issue is about the start of the paragraph:
I think that is the real issue now, and the question is: Which of the three options implement better with Wikipedia's neutrality imperative. -- Keysanger ( talk) 20:57, 17 July 2009 (UTC) Gigs, do you understand Spanish text? -- Keysanger ( talk) 21:36, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
We are talking at cross-purposes. Gigs wants to obtain a binding question to answer. I propose to fix concordances and Likemina and Marshal discusse about defensive issues and every one sets different aims to be reached. It doesn't make sense. We need to schedule a discussion path. -- Keysanger ( talk) 00:12, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
I'd like to see what Arafel says before we go on, I will leave a message on their talk page that we are waiting on them. I know this process is a little slow, but we don't want one person to come back at the end and say that they completely disagree with the direction we've taken. Gigs ( talk) 00:59, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
|
We have waited several days for Arafel to provide input, I think we should move on.
Does everyone agree with the following statement?
It doesn't seem to me that this fact is in dispute, ignoring the matter of the true nature of the alliance (we'll get to that next), right?
Extended content
|
---|
Next up:
I know this one is indeed in dispute, and is almost the entire dispute. I have a few comments/proposals:
Please respond to each comment as a separate issue. Please try to keep it short and don't let it turn into a long debate here, so that we can keep it readable. Gigs ( talk) 02:03, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
I read somewhere "Keysanger says that ...", "Keysanger means this ...". I want to state clearly and without any compromise that I represent my self and I do not allow any person to represent my opinion in this discussion. I warn the partner that such "representations" may be phantasies of the writers. -- Keysanger ( talk) 18:05, 24 July 2009 (UTC) Keysanger's opinion:
Wikipedia shouldn't decide through logical und/or semantical analisys whether the pact was defensive/offensive because such analisys lacks the political, economic and military circumstances and implications of the pact. Wikipedia have to use reliable sources. -- Keysanger ( talk) 21:12, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
To point 1) I have to correct that not only the Chilean Government but different international reliable sources interpreted the treaty as defensive and/or offensive and as a menace for Chile. To point 2) I think Marshal wants to judge the treaty with ethical values. He wants to say "the treaty was good and defensiv" but that is not possible in a encyclopaedia unless it is a issue without controversy and this is not the case. Now Marshal wants references for other issue "the use of the treaty". We can discuss also about "the consecuences of the treaty" (good/bad) or "international impact of the treaty" (important/irrevelant), or "the importance of the treaty in the logistic of the war" (high/low) or … . That may be very interesting issues, but I fear I haven't enough time for. We are discussing now whether the
Let's hang in there. I will not abuse of Gigs's friendliness and we (M and K) have a lot of work to do. Later we can look for further themes to discuss. -- Keysanger ( talk) 19:58, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
|
Hi Marshal,
Do you agree that
(pay attention to "offensive to Chile", it is more precisely than to any country)
I, Keysanger, agree this 3 points and as far as I'm concerned, we have resolved the case if you agree.
About the new question, The treaty, and the alliance, was only used defensively. I don't know. I never heard such opinion. You are the first one but you live and learn. You know already my references. Let me know your refrences with author name, publisher, year of publishing, total number of pages of the book, page number of the passage and the relevant passage. Please don't resent me that bits and pieces, such work is usual for enciclopedic works.
I agree also: If a statement is contentious among reliable sources, we need to just report who views it one way, and who views it the other way, and refrain from asserting one or the other is reality. We can let the reader make up their own mind after presenting them the evidence in the most neutral way possible.
-- Keysanger ( talk) 00:12, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
I think that is incorrect but if Gigs wants to mediate also this issue, I don't mind. You have to deliver the references for your item (4). --
Keysanger (
talk) 01:45, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
You must write the text passage supporting your statement. -- Keysanger ( talk) 15:10, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
"Tommaso Caivano" is used correctly. I repeat my statement about Caivano:
Tommasso Caivano (9) doesn't call the treaty offensive, only reproduces Diego Barros Arana's view and states that a treaty is subject of interpretations. That is what I want to state.
So you discovered nothing new but you overlooked again the last part of the sentence: and states that a treaty is subject of interpretations. That is what I want to state.
Would you be so kind to let us read the relevant text of your first source now? -- Keysanger ( talk) 17:14, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
Hello again, I am back. Has there been any discussion elsewhere of this issue during my absence, or are we still at the same place? Gigs ( talk) 11:35, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
There hasn't been any direct contribution of this issue during your absence. Marshal was unable to deliver any reliable sources for his 4. sentence "The treaty was only used defensively". The text "The Republic of Peru decrees that the casus foederis mentioned in the Treaty of the 6th of February, 1873, with Bolivia has arrived; and, consequently, the time has come when the alliance must come into effect with all its stipulations."" in no way supports the biased sentence.
So, as far as I'm concerned, we agree that :
-- Keysanger ( talk) 11:03, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
You're lying on what has been thus far agreed. That's just shameful. The treaty was not "offensive to Chile." That's your personal bias and that of Chilean historians.
That's what has been agreed. If you don't want the 4th point, fine, I won't argue it as (like I said above) I'm tired of this discussion. However, don't try to sneak in personal nationalist bias into what has already been agreed.-- $%MarshalN20%$ ( talk) 15:54, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
As you like it:
So, I think the issue is now cleared.
-- Keysanger ( talk) 11:43, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
Thank you Gigs, -- Keysanger ( talk) 10:37, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
I have re-named the newly created section. I don’t agree with the World perspectives and much less with the forked section Argentina.
Argentina -as it is well documented- played a very prominent role priorior, during and after the war. It was not a mere World viewer, but an active negotiator and possible member of the secret Bolivia-Peru alliance. It’s also well known that Argentina had an ongoing dispute with Chile for territories in Patagonia.
Here’s how the archive of the Argentine foreign ministry puts it [11]:
Sin embargo, a pesar de su neutralidad en la guerra del Pacífico, las autoridades argentinas no dejaron de jugar un rol importante en el delicado equilibrio de fuerzas del Cono Sur, y especialmente relevante en relación a las naciones "menores" en términos de poder en la subregión. Así, la cancillería argentina emprendió una serie de acciones diplomáticas apuntadas a evitar que Chile pudiera obtener grandes ganancias, sobre todo territoriales, a costa de los países vencidos, Perú y Bolivia. En la base de la actitud argentina estaba el temor a que, luego de la victoria sobre Perú y Bolivia, Chile buscara expandirse sobre territorio argentino. La percepción predominante en los hombres del gobierno argentino, durante las décadas de 1870 y 1880, respecto de su situación de inferioridad de fuerzas militares en comparación con las de Chile había contribuido a exacerbar dicho temor.
However, despite its neutrality in the Pacific war, the Argentine authorities did not fail to play an important role in the delicate balance of forces in the Southern Cone, and particularly relevant in relation to the "minor" nations in terms of power in the sub-region. Thus, the Argentine Foreign Ministry launched a series of diplomatic actions aimed at preventing that Chile could gain big profits, especially land, at the expense of the defeated countries, Peru and Bolivia.
On the basis of that attitude Argentina was under the fear that after the victory over Peru and Bolivia, Chile could seek to expand on Argentine territory. The prevailing perception among men in the Argentine government during the 1870s and 1880s, for their inferior status of military forces in comparison with those of Chile helped to exacerbate the fear.
I believe the section called Role of Argentina in the war, Argentina's stance or something of that kind is more appropriate.
I, however, will leave the other sections under characteristics of the war.
Likeminas ( talk) 01:05, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
Always fill in the summary field. This is considered an important guideline. Even a short summary is better than no summary. An edit summary is even more important if you delete any text; otherwise, people may question your motives for the edit. Also, mentioning one change but not another one can be misleading to someone who finds the other one more important; add "and misc." to cover the other change(s).
Accurate summaries help people decide whether it is worthwhile for them to check a change. We've found that summaries often pique the interest of contributors with expertise in the area. This may not be as necessary for "minor changes", but "fixed spelling" would be nice even then.
There apparently is, yet again, another problem. This time it comes from the lead. This is what I have recently written for the lead:
The War of the Pacific, occurring from 1879-1883, was a conflict between Chile and the joint forces of Bolivia and Peru. Also known as the " Saltpeter War," the war arose from disputes over the control of territory that contained substantial mineral-rich deposits. After a taxation controversy in a territory disputed by Chile and Bolivia, the crisis worsened following the Chilean invasion of Bolivian territory and the discovery of a secret defensive alliance between Bolivia and Peru. The war officially began on 1879, after the Chilean declaration of war and the activation of the casus foederis of the defensive treaty between Peru and Bolivia. The conclusion of the conflict ultimately led to the Chilean annexation of the Peruvian Tarapaca department and Arica province, as well as the Bolivian department of Litoral, leaving Bolivia as a landlocked country.
However, Keysanger reverted this and instead wrote this for the lead:
The War of the Pacific, occurring from 1879-1883, was a conflict between Chile and the joint forces of Bolivia and Peru. Also known as the " Saltpeter War", the war arose from disputes over the control of territory that contained substantial mineral-rich deposits. The crisis worsened after a taxation controversy in a territory disputed by Bolivia and Chile, Chile invaded Bolivian territory and discovered the existance of a secret alliance between Bolivia and Peru. The war officially began on 1879, after the Bolivian declaration of war and the activation of the casus foederis of the defensive treaty between Peru and Bolivia. The conclusion of the conflict ultimately led to the Peruvian and Bolivian cession of the Peruvian Tarapaca department and Arica province, as well as the Bolivian department of Litoral, leaving Bolivia as a landlocked country. [14]
Instead of actually improving the lead, he creates a horrible grammatic error and deletes/adds things based on his POV. Once again, how can WP:GF be assumed after such edits?-- //[*]MarshalN20[*]\\ ( talk) 13:47, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
Here are some points of comparisson:
I'm thinking about creating a picture of the most "well known" or outstanding commanders of the War of the Pacific. I'd be using Wikipedia's picture of them, since most of their pictures here are past their copyright status (thus leaving them free for public use). However, I'd like to hear some opinions. Should I make a large combination of all the military commanders, or split them up among the nations (One for Chile, one for Peru, and one for Bolivia, and maybe one for the foreigners)? Any other opinions would be good.-- //[*]MarshalN20[*]\\ ( talk) 20:38, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
Marshall recently created a highly POV section, using "sources" from a ultra nationalistic website called Peru Heroico or "Heroic Peru" They should be removed immediately as per WP:RS and WP:NPOV
Likeminas ( talk) 14:04, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
We have unsolved issues :
The present version [16] of article reflects mainly Marshals view of the facts. Attempts to improve the article has been reverted by Marshal. I have to warn the reader about a biased description of the facts.
-- Keysanger ( talk) 23:01, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
Clearly, Marshall is tweaking the article and pushing his POV now. What's more aggravating, is that he's doing so with highly questionable websites such as www.peruheroico.com and even adding Chilean racism into it.
Likeminas ( talk) 23:28, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
Marshal leads almost always every objective discussion into a personal issue. He ignores the arguments of the other people and starts dubious sentences about the opponent:
mainly if he cann't find a answer to the problems of his argumentation. To my contribution he answered:
That has nothing to do with the problem of the neutrality. What a sense makes the sentence "Chile is scared of mice"?.
Also about the secret clausel of the alliance treaty he did this statement, not in the right ballpark, I asked him again and he tried to correct but he missed by a mile [17]. I asked him to finish the discussion and to reach an agreement about the issue [18] and a second time in [19] but he never answered.
That are only two flowers in Marshal's garden. He led the way with non-Neutrality statements (Chile=blind, Peru=healthy) , dubious sources (peruheroico.com) and individual-related expressions (You seem to be a little agitated) or to deviate the discussion to themes beside the point (You're going to tell me that Chile isn't racist?) .
On this way we will never improve the article. We have to go on and get a consensus in this article, based on the 5 pillars of wikipedia.
I propose to lock the article page until we get an agreement. Or at least we should agree not to makes changes that could be contested.
We will discusse the issues one after the other.
The POV-tag remain in.
-- Keysanger ( talk) 13:31, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
Before this escalates into something bigger, let's cool down for a moment. I personally have no interest in getting personal with anyone here. I think we should just stick to the issues and avoid any confrontation at a personal level. I hope we can all agree, that in a more cordial environment it is way more enjoyable and efficient to contribute to the betterment of the article.
At the same time I'd like to stress the need for specific information regarding sources.
There might me more issues that need to be addressed, so please feel free to add them. And again, Let’s discuss content, not the editor.
Likeminas ( talk) 15:05, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
"Some people say..." "Some argue..." "Contrary to many..." "Research has shown..." "...is claimed to be..." "...is thought to be..." "It is believed that..." "It is rumored that..." "Some feel that..." "Critics/experts say that..." "It is claimed..." "It has been reported that..." "It is generally considered that..." Anthropomorphisms like "Science says ..." or "Medicine believes ..."
That's a list of some of the weasel words.-- //[*]MarshalN20[*]\\ ( talk) 15:48, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
Marshal, I don't know if you realize it but you deleted this sourced sentence, not once but twice [21], [22]. I'm sure you're aware that deletion of sourced material without justification amounts to vandalism. I will, once again, restore the sentence. Likeminas ( talk) 18:46, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
I get a book with a seldom title: span id="btAsinTitle"La emigración europea a la América Latina. There is no access to the text of the book. -- Keysanger ( talk) 20:00, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
That source -I'm afraid- was used in a rather deceptive manner. How can the statement, for which that source was used, be corroborated without accessing the relevant book page(s)?
Adding fraudulent sources is a worrying precedent, which I must say, does not do a lot in the realm of good faith.
Likeminas ( talk) 15:47, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
That's interesting because you previously claimed it “opened perfectly” and that it “took only a few seconds”
[23] but when other users including myself tried to open it we got nothing but this span id="btAsinTitle"La emigración europea a la América Latina. Then you said you were “working” on fixing the link
[24] and when
Keysanger got the same results as me, you advised us to “to use the search engine within the book” which implies that the book was accessible (at least by you).
Now you claim it is “library book”?
Then why then not say that from the very beginning?
Why fix a link that cannot be fixed?
And more intriguingly how are we supposed to use the search engine within a library book?
Likeminas (
talk) 18:39, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
Peruvian POV Although in a condition of numerical inferiority, Miguel Grau, the commander of the Huáscar, managed to hold-off all of the Chilean navy for six months. Among the most outstanding actions of these " Excursions of the Huáscar" are the Battle of Antofagasta (May 26, 1879) and the Second Battle Antofagasta (August 28, 1879).
Not only does Grau capture the ship, but also captures the cavalry regiment Carabineros de Yungay which was on board.
besides being WP:POVthis edit [25] deletes sourced, relevant information it breaks wikilinks, and blantly lacks any sources
This is not an improvement, and I'm reverting it to the previous version.
PS:Actually I won't be able to revert it because of times issues now, but that section needs to be worked out. Here's a good source for the naval campaign: http://books.google.com/books?id=mswNUZ4w0iwC&pg=PA132&dq=naval+war+chile+peru&ei=KWlmSsLNJJ6SygS80-mmBA starting on page 128 Likeminas ( talk) 01:19, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
Wow. How is it "Peruvian POV"? the Naval campaign section is much better than the broken-up strips of information that were not a summary of the naval conflict.-- $%MarshalN20%$ ( talk) 01:25, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
the sentence
is contradictory with the next sentences:
There are of course other battles and uses of the navies after the battle of angamos. I request to delete or change first sentence (The Battle of Angamos marks the end …)
-- Keysanger ( talk) 11:36, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
Deleted -- Keysanger ( talk) 13:45, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
The sentence During the War of the Pacific, Chile was backed morally and financially by the British Empire. is backed by two references:
Looking the second of them we can state that, apart from that the column is somthing like a blog without any academic label, the only sentence regarding some kind of backing is En ambos episodios [Falkland war, War of the Pacific] como todos sabemos, los gobernantes chilenos han estado en una espuria complicidad con los británicos..
There is nothing to sustain the backed morally and financially.
The given reference ( http://www.elcorreo.eu.org/esp/article.php3?id_article=3426 ) is more or less a blog site and have to replaced by a reliable source, relativized or deleted.
-- Keysanger ( talk) 14:40, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
The lackawamma conference doesn't belong to the Land Campaign. I reinserted it into the main article.
-- Keysanger ( talk) 14:40, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
The Lackawamma Conference is part of the Land Campaign?.
Which is the name of the battle? Lackawamma battle?
The Conference belongs absolutly to the main article.
-- Keysanger ( talk) 10:27, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
Why do you put the LC in the Land Campaign? Do you see a batle there? -- Keysanger ( talk) 20:06, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
It's part of the land campaign. We're not making a list of battles, we're doing a summary of the most important events of the Land Campaign. The Lackawama Conference is not important enough to hold its own section: The negotiations were a failure (It didn't resolve the war, therefore it's not important for a section of its own). However, it is important in the sense of it being "a part of" the wide view of the events. In the summary given to it, a paragraph on its own, all the important points of the conference are covered.-- $%MarshalN20%$ ( talk) 20:51, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
Once the article gets into a position where it exceeds the capacity of 82 KB, it becomes completely obvious that a summary of the events is necessary in certain sections of the article. Please read Wikipedia:Article size. I know that some of you would like to include even the name of the grandmothers of the participants in the war, but sadly, certain specific things need to slowly be put into a separate article.
For example, the section Land campaign and invasion already holds its own article. If you wish to expand on that, go to its own article and expand the information there. As for the article, it should only hold a summary of the events. User:Keysanger (I have to single him out) has turned this section into a Wikipedia:Content forking. If this user wants to include things such as the "Lackawana Conference" in the article, it should be done in one elaborated sentence that goes straight to the point. Per Wikipedia:Article size, I will revert the information back to the summary-style that used to be in place.
And no, Keysanger, it's not that I have anything against you or that you're an "opponent." There are some basic Wiki rules that have to be followed. If you want to see this article promoted to "GA Status," the page has to be at about 82 KB. There are only very few and rare exceptions that Wikipedia allows for more, but this article does not need it.--MarshalN20.14:57, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
Hi Marshal,
You deleted a lot of information about the circumtances of Prado's trip to Panamathe and Putsch Pierola against Prado. All this information was referenced and it is uncontested. Remember that to delete referenced information can be considered vandalism. Would you be so kind to rewrite this important data to the main article.
-- Keysanger ( talk) 10:37, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
To your information Prado was the president of Peru at the begining of the war.
Pierola was the President of Peru at the Batle of Chorrillos.
Do you know how get pierola president?
-- Keysanger ( talk) 20:08, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
Besides, the ships (which Peru also got from Britain) and money (which Peru got from France) how does British role equal that of Argentina?
Did the British parlament also sign into a secret alliance with Chile?
The section violates POV content fork and undue weight. Likeminas ( talk) 15:56, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
I restored to the older version of this article.
The changes recently made to the article, with the inclusion of fraudulent sources
[26] is much more contentious than it previously was.
The new version loaded with POV edits heavily done by a single user is not an improvement.
I would like to improve this article, as I assume all of you want. But to do that, we nee to have a rational and dispassionate discussion that focuses on content rather than the user. That’s why I propose we discuss any major changes before they’re implemented in the article.
This approach will allow us to raise questions of relevance, due weight and sources before they’re inserted in the article, which in turn, will reduce the chances of that content being challenged in the future.
I invite all contributors of this article to go an read the Spanish version as it serves a good example of a dispassionate and rather neutral looking article.
http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guerra_del_Pac%C3%ADfico
Likeminas ( talk) 16:24, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
I support plenty Likeminas's doing. The article was awkfully biased in wording, theme selection, weight of the facts, seriousness of sources, etc.
Our failed attempts to improve the article will remain in the repository of wikipedia and can be recovered if we get a consensus about the use. But unfortunately most of them are not appropriate to build a consensus.
I am open minded for any proposal. Let's improve the article within the rules of wikipedia.
-- Keysanger ( talk) 17:11, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
Marshal, it doesn't make sense to discuss about the old biased article. It was imposible to reach consensus on this base. I agreed to the creation, but not to this monstrosity (importance of Argentina= importance Great Britain), to mention only one of the failures of the old article.
I propose:
1) to elaborate a "table of contents" based in recognized books about the War of the Pacific. I find "Andean Tragedy" of (?) a possible choice. I think that is easy because all good authors agree on the main themes.
2) to make a rough estimate of the lenght for every theme
3) to write and cite from well known authors, with page number and a short passage of the relevant text to avoid misunderstandings and to give the interested reader a glance of the authors view. No more blogs, or 800 pages books without the position of the support sentence, no more contested websites.
4) I think for daring thesis we can let a "Analisys" chapter at the end of the article, but announcing to the reader that it is thesis.
5) but first and foremost we have to keep cool. No personal attacks. No You are ... but your proposal is ....
I am sure we can get it.
-- Keysanger ( talk) 17:52, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
Blaine was denounced at home as a bellicose meddler and corrupt practitioner of “guano diplomacy”, who sought to make a financial killing by supporting the specious claims of unscrupulous entrepreneurs and hustler to guano deposits in Peru. Charges for which he was later investigated
The list goes on but those are few of the proven accusations and the main reason of why the last version of the article was highly POV and needed to be discussed.
Likeminas ( talk) 18:04, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
Those are your opinions. You deleted 34,000 bytes of sourced material, and you'll have to explain yourself to high authorities if you continue with such nonsense.-- $%MarshalN20%$ ( talk) 20:07, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
Marshall,
you screwed things up. You have added already to the article 28 problems and I will not accept your changes without explicit consensus of the editors. Stop your edits without consensus.
-- Keysanger ( talk) 19:11, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
Marshal, your work has been very contentious and have brought the article a lot of pov tags and others. You keep adding on to the Peruvian POV. Your duty is to write a neutral article. So, please stop adding more biased sentences to the article, with other without references.
-- Keysanger ( talk) 10:48, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
In regards to the last addition, I think it's necessary to include page numbers for the relevant text, and this link http://www.unirbolivia.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=blogcategory&id=6&Itemid=168 needs to point out which magazine is the one being used. Likeminas ( talk) 20:39, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
Let Arafael does his duty. Your duty is not to write an article but to write a neutral article. -- Keysanger ( talk) 13:38, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
This article is getting turned into a carnival of tags!-- $%MarshalN20%$ ( talk) 18:05, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
{{multiple issues}}
tag? Dentren | Talk 18:39, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
Sure, ehm, Dentren?-- $%MarshalN20%$ ( talk) 18:33, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
right its me. Dentren | Talk 18:39, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
Yay! I thought it was the cookie monster for a second. lol.-- $%MarshalN20%$ ( talk) 18:43, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
The reader have to be warned about the issues of the article. I told already that the article is awfully biased. Now you see waht taht means. --
Keysanger (
talk) 19:50, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
You have reinstalled your biased version after Likeminas restored a less contentious version. See the list of flaws and and accept that your view of the history is contested. The reader has to be warned about the problems of the article and in fact about all the problems. Don't hide the faults, Wikipedia works with transparency.
-- Keysanger ( talk) 00:31, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
What list of flaws? Why do you keep trying to push your personal agenda? Likeminas made a mistake in removing 34,000 bytes of sourced information; that's understandeable as we are human beings. Both me and Likeminas have agreed to come to more friendly terms. However, you keep vandalizing the article by adding a series of tags that can be easily summarized in one. Moreover, you're comparing my re-addition of 34,000 bytes of sourced information to your vandalism. The sourced information I have added is contested because you want to push your personal agenda against it. Well Keysanger, the sad thing for you is that you will not be able to delete sourced information unless you manage to somehow find other sourced information that can dispute it. That's how Wikipedia works.-- $%MarshalN20%$ ( talk) 00:48, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
The solution is simple. The flaws are there, let the warnings there. -- Keysanger ( talk) 00:59, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, I wasn't logged. 85.177.77.249 is my IP. Now you have it. Keysanger dit it!.
-- Keysanger ( talk) 01:32, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
The reader has to be warned. Every tag alludes to a significant and different non-conformance in the article:
So every tag is necessary, lack of wake-up call could be misunderstood by the reader.
-- Keysanger ( talk) 18:57, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
It is not vandalism, we have to attract editors with different viewpoints because we need additional insight. -- Keysanger ( talk) 17:58, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
Now there are only 3 tags. I think that is enough for both sides and the editwar over. -- Keysanger ( talk) 18:03, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
I see that there is ongoing dispute between Likeminas and MarshalN20.. Can you just bring up the level the discussion? I propose you both to discuss all disputed paragraphs here one by one as compact as possible. Its very difficult ofr an outsider to catch up the dispute. I propose that the sentences and paragraphs that are agreed here to be poorly sourced should be left in the article for 1 month (with a tag) and be remover afterward if they are still badly sourced.
Issue nr | Text | Problem | Status | Petitioner | date |
1 | Cáceres's troops faced against the better equipped and armed Chilean troops with the usage of archaic weaponry such as machetes, spears, clubs, stones, and few old muskets. | Ultra-nationalistic source | resolved | Dentren | 29.07.2009 |
2 | After a taxation controversy in a territory disputed by Chile and Bolivia, the crisis worsened following the Chilean invasion of Bolivian territory and the discovery of a secret defensive alliance between Bolivia and Peru | Weasel words | resolved | Keysanger | 29.07.2009 |
3 | The conclusion of the conflict ultimately led to the Chilean annexation of the Peruvian Tarapaca department and Arica province, as well as the Bolivian department of Litoral, leaving Bolivia as a landlocked country. | annexation is not the word used in the Treaty of Ancon( http://es.wikisource.org/wiki/Tratado_de_Ancón): Artículo 2º: La República del Perú cede a la Republica de Chile, perpetua e incondicionalmente, … | resolved | Keysanger | 29.07.2009 |
4 | treaty of defensive alliance | on going discussion | open | Keysanger | 29.07.2009 |
5 | Chile was not directly mentioned in the text of the treaty, but was not informed about its existence, which leads Chilean historians to believe that the treaty was in reality aimed against Chile | Weasel words: Chile was not directly mentioned is presented as fact, what is true, but Chileans are presented as blind, they dont understand. | open | Keysanger | 29.07.2009 |
6 | Chile was not directly mentioned in the text of the treaty, but was not informed about its existence, which leads Chilean historians to believe that the treaty was in reality aimed against Chile | Do not considerer the interpretation of the secret by the Chilean Government at that time, not only the chilean historians. | open | Keysanger | 29.07.2009 |
7 | Heavy British capital investment drove development through the area, and most of the exploitation of the coastal region of Atacama was conducted by Chilean companies and British investments | Sentence is POV (British drove Chileans) and lacks reliable reference | open | Keysanger | 29.07.2009 |
8 | Role of Argentina | No need for it to be part of "crisis." Argentina did not join the alliance and did not do anything more outstanding than Great Britain, Brazil, France, the United States and all the other nations in the "World Perspectives" section (where they all should go). | open | Marshal | 29.07.2009 |
9 | and told him that it was not offensive to Chile. | POV: Why is there this statement and no Chilean statements about the agressiveness of the treaty? | open | Keysanger | 29.07.2009 |
10 | Role of Great Britain | simply pushed too hard: GB did not declared the war to Peru, did not sell weapons to CH or PE or BO during the war Unbalanced POV + Undue weight under Crisis section |
open | Keysanger | 29.07.2009 |
11 | The climax of the excursions was the capture of the steamship Rímac | What is means with Climax: In general, a climax (from the Greek word “κλῖμαξ” (klimax) meaning “staircase” and “ladder”) is a point of greatest intensity or force in an ascending series; i.e., a culmination. The term "climax" has many specific connotations and uses in English:
|
open | Keysanger | 29.07.2009 |
12 | Once the naval superiority was achieved, the troops of the Chilean army initiated a series of military maneuvers in the Peruvian provinces | according with http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/maneuvers maneuvers doesn't fit to the events: tausend of people dead or injured, Peru and Bolivia lost their main income source. Are that maneuvers | open | Keysanger | 29.07.2009 |
13 | Once the naval superiority was achieved, the troops of the Chilean army initiated a series of military maneuvers in the Peruvian provinces of Tarapacá, Tacna, and Arica. The battles of Pisagua, Tacna, and Arica, resulted in Chilean victories that gave Chile control over the Atacama desert. Although the Battle of Tarapacá was an allied victory, it did not change the course of the events in favor of the allies because Bolivia retired from war after the Battle of Tacna,[citation needed] and Peru was left alone to face against Chile. | That is all about the Land Campaign in the main article. compare with the Role of Great Britain | open | Keysanger | 29.07.2009 |
14 | The Lynch expedition, the Lackawamma conference, The putsch Pierola against Prado, etc, etc , until the ending of the war, all that is only under one title: Land Campaign | The reader needs some clues to better understanding of the matter. The article needs more titles and subtitles. I added that but they were deleted by Marshal | open | Keysanger | 29.07.2009 |
15 | Peru's Tarapacá province was ceded to the victor and Bolivia was forced to cede Antofagasta. | POV: was forced | open | Keysanger | 29.07.2009 |
16 | uprising forced the puppet regime | POV: puppet | open | Keysanger | 29.07.2009 |
17 | Peru took the initiative and utilized its smaller but effective navy | POV: effective | open | Keysanger | 29.07.2009 |
18 | When retreating, Allied forces made sure that little if any assets remained to be used by the enemy | POV Non-sense, facts | open | Keysanger | 29.07.2009 |
19 | Massive raidings from demoralized Peruvian soldiers and invading Chilean forces destroyed several Peruvian towns and cities across the coastline. | Facts? | open | Keysanger | 29.07.2009 |
20 | The history of the Peruvian Politics (Prado-Pierola-Calderon-Caceres-Montero) was partially deleted by Marshal | must be there | open | Keysanger | 29.07.2009 |
21 | Summarized US Role vs. Non-Summarized | Likeminas keeps reverting the summarized version to the long one. | open | Marshal | 29.07.2009 |
22 | Role of the United States | Summarized version of events is better for the article, just as with all of the other sections being summarized. Some users want to keep it long because of their childish rants and attempts to push their POV. | open | Marshall | 29.07.2009 |
23 | |||||
24 | Usage of Ultra Nationalistic Websites | Heroic Peru (www.peruheroic.com), with our Peru (www.connuestroperu.com) | resolved | Likeminas | 29.07.2009 |
25 | Use of excerpts from Google books | Very likely to be used out of context if only a few sentences are can be read | open | Likeminas | 29.07.2009 |
26 | In South America, the War of the Pacific was not well-received. | facts? | text removed | Keysanger | 29.07.2009 |
27 | Italian immigrants in Peru complained about the murder and plunder of their property by Chilean troops to the Italian government which eventually sent three warships to help protect its citizens.[117] Italy's greatest contribution to the war would be through its immigrants, who would serve as medics and firemen in Peru, but a great rift took place between the Chilean and Italian governments when 11 Italian firemen, who were attempting to put out fires and help wounded Peruvian soldiers, were killed by Chilean troops after the Battle of Chorrillos.[118] Italian immigrants in Chile would face further hostility after the Chilean army reported that as many as 700 Italians had fought alongside Peruvians in the Battle of San Juan and Miraflores, which was a claim that was, according to Peruvian historian Jorge Basadre, false and, according Italian historian Tomas Caivano, a cover-up for the murder of Italians by Chilean troops.[118] | Biased text because it doesn't mention all the data given in the book page 103 | open | Keysanger | 29.07.2009 |
28 | However, the real issue is the fear of being dependent on Chile or Peru. | [citation needed] | text removed | Keysanger | 29.07.2009 |
29 | Aftermath: Chile | 1)Victory was, however, a mixed blessing.[citation needed] (Opinion and unsourced) 2)British involvement and control of the nitrate industry rose significantly after the war,[126] leading them to meddle in Chilean politics and ultimately to back an overthrow of Chilean President José Manuel Balmaceda in 1891(needs to be verified by more reliable sources) 3)Economic data regarding the slowing the country's industrial development, the British companies left the country, leaving a large number of unemployment behind and Chilean popular belief sees this as a territorial loss of almost half a million square miles (need to be verified by reliable sources or removed.) | open | Likeminas | 29.07.2009 |
30 | Appropiate weight and promince in the roles of Argentina, Britain and the U.S. | Were the goverments of Arg. GB and the US directly involved in negotiations with each of the combatant nations? What were the ineterests of these nations? What aid that these countries gave can be corroborated via reliable sources? What was their declared and official stance on the war and what was their tacit one? | open | Likeminas | 29.07.2009 |
31 | At the exchange of these economic gains, Chile faced a series of social problems. According to Erika Beckman, Professor of Latin American studies at the University of Chicago, Chilean state actors justified the war with racist rhetoric. Chilean historian Diego Barros Arana argues that the Chilean elite saw itself as "the British of South America," while viewing its northern neighbors (Bolivia and Peru) as people of inferior races.[127] | The current version deals with Chilean racism but it lacks any mention of the racism within the Peruvian society | open | Keysanger | 30 July 2009 |
32 | Clements Markham | Clements Markham must be auted as a Peru-biased author. reference: W.F. Sater, "Andean Tragedy", University of Nebraska Press, 2007, page 91: The admittedly Pro-Peruvian Clemens Markman … |
open | Keysanger | 30 July 2009 |
33 | Map of the war | Puna de Atacama is incorrectly depicted in the map in the current map. | open | MarshalN20 | 25 August 2009 |
34 | In 1874, Chile and Bolivia superseded the boundary treaty signed in 1866 with a new boundary treaty granting Bolivia the authority to collect full tax revenue between the 23rd and 24th parallels, fixing the tax rates on Chilean companies for 25 years and calling for Bolivia to open up. | Elaborate on "Open Up" (What exactly does it mean?) | open | MarshalN20 | 25 August 2009 |
35 | After the battle there were fires and sackings by demoralized Peruvian soldiers in the towns of Chorrillos and Barranco. | The source used to prove this lines is questionable, and there is new evidence and more direct sources than shows than was the Chilean troops, not the Peruvian ones, the responsables of the destruction of both towns | Open | MarshalN20 Cloudaoc |
25 August 2009 |
36 | The Peruvian capital, Lima, at that point an aristocratic city, lived disconnected from the rest of Peru and completely underestimated the war situation. This contributed to a destabilization of its political class and prevented an effective defensive preparation against the Chilean landing just south of the city. | unsupported sentences | open | Keysanger | 25 August 2009 |
37 | Books | confiscated | open | Cloudac | 29 August 2009 |
38 | After the Chilean invasion of Antofagasta, Hilarión Daza made a presidential decree on March 1, 1879, which demanded the expulsion of Chileans, the nationalizing of Chilean private property and prohibited trade and communications with Chile "as long as the war lasts".[21] Due to its aggressiveness the Chilean government understood the decree as a declaration of war.[22][23] However, although both nations had already taken aggressive actions, in reality no war had yet been formally declared from either side of the conflict.[24][25] | There are a lot of sources that state the Bolivian declaration of war but the text makes a Original research and states that there was no DoW | open | Keysanger | 30 August 2009 |
This page, [34], is used to source issue nr 1. This site is not reliable since it is ultra-nationalistic, perhaps etno-cacerista. The site describes the war as a war of robbery and pillage (rapiña), the occupation of Peru as unhonorable and shameful (ignominioso) and says that the a Chilean extermination and destruction in Lima is proper of war criminals and is a preamble to the Nazi practises in Europe. However the claim about the weapons used by Caceres troops may be true, and should be investigated, and sourced trough proper sources. Dentren | Talk 07:56, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
The word worsened aplied to the Chilean response to the Bolivian facts is POV -- Keysanger ( talk) 13:11, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
No personal attacks. -- Keysanger ( talk) 16:48, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
If it doesn't matter, then I will change the order of the adjetives. -- Keysanger ( talk) 16:48, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
How is it resolved? You:
In other words, the usage of the word "worsened" goes both to the Chilean invasion of Bolivian territory and the discovery of the secret defensive alliance between Bolivia and Peru. Which makes me repeat the question, how is it POV?-- $%MarshalN20%$ ( talk) 16:59, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
After a taxation controversy in a territory disputed by Chile and Bolivia, the crisis was followed by a Chilean invasion of Bolivian territory and the discovery of a secret defensive alliance between Bolivia and Peru Has anybody problems with this version of the text? Dentren | Talk 17:23, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
It is POV because assign to Chile the blame of the "the situation worsened". I agree Dentren's proposal. -- Keysanger ( talk) 17:41, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
Yes, you are right. you would clearly see that the "worsened" part is going for both the invasion of Antofagasta and the discovery of the secret treaty. The first part (invasion of Antofagasta) blames Chile.
Next personal attack and I will think it’s necessary that an administrator intervenes. -- Keysanger ( talk) 17:52, 29 July 2009 (UTC) I hope Marshal has understand now what is wrong. We use Dentren's proposal as consensus:
-- Keysanger ( talk) 17:56, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
MArshal I understand your point of view, but tell me whats wrong with the other version? I made it not because I believed that "worsened" was a totally flawed, but to avoid "qualifiers". Dentren | Talk 18:16, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
All I see from Keysanger's opinion is that he does not want the Chilean invasion of Antofagasta to be seen as making the matter worse. How can it not make the matter worse? It would be like saying that Germany's invasion of the Czech zone of Czechoslovakia did not make the crisis prior to WW II worse. It's illogical. Moreover, the "worse" part is mentioning both the discovery of the secret defensive alliance (which is Peru and Bolivia's creation) and the invasion of Antofagasta. In other words, no single country is being aimed. Do you understand?-- $%MarshalN20%$ ( talk) 18:29, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
Not a satisfactory objection by Marshall. Logic tells us that in a sequence of events, one event must be followed and preceded by another. In addition, usage of qualifiers (weasel wording) such as “worsened” is discouraged by Wikipedia’s rule. Likeminas ( talk) 18:40, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
I replaced the sentence with Dentren's first proposal. -- Keysanger ( talk) 18:59, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
After a taxation controversy in a territory disputed by Chile and Bolivia, the crisis was deepened after the Chilean occupation of Bolivian territory and the discovery of a secret defensive alliance between Bolivia and Peru
I don't like the current version and I am not alone. Despite my poor english knowledge, others agree that ( [35]):
"worsened" or "deepened" doesn't change the quality. It is bad quality. I will make a proposal in the next days. -- Keysanger ( talk) 18:23, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
I see two possible ways of saying it: Peru ceded or Chile annexed. Ceded is the wording of the treaty, but wikipedia does not need to follow it exactly, annexed on the other side is correct to. IIs this relevant? Ask any Chilean historian, Chile annexed Tarapaca, and ask any Peruvian historian the Peruvian government (in Lima?) had to cede Dentren | Talk 18:36, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
Peru ceded Tarapaca, and Bolivia ceded its Litoral department; as a result of the war That is right. How would you denominate the Arica handing over?. Please sumarize, -- Keysanger ( talk) 19:03, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
Arica was first occupied by Chile but then ultimately ceded by Peru. Dentren | Talk 19:08, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
Marshall accepted Cession. Resolved -- Keysanger ( talk) 19:17, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
How's that for consensus?-- $%MarshalN20%$ ( talk) 19:20, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
You wrote:
-- Keysanger ( talk) 19:45, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
I disagree. -- Keysanger ( talk) 19:50, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
Is this issue resolved?-- $%MarshalN20%$ ( talk) 20:24, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
Can anybody explain to me what the problem is in "Issue N. 5"? I've tried reading it a couple of times, but I don't understand the problem.-- $%MarshalN20%$ ( talk) 01:26, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
The text is:
1) There is a unlogical but joining two sentences:
It doesn't make sense to say " … but … " because the second sentence (was not informed about its existence) doesn't contradict or correct the first sentence (Chile was not directly mentioned in the text of the treaty). In this case you could say " … and … ".
2) Wikipedia's duty Wikipedia:Five pillars is not to explain the history ( or what lead the Chileans/Peruvian/Bolivians historians). Wikipedia's duty is to expone the facts and the knowledge of the historians about it, and that, with reliable sources and not original research. The word "lead" is out of place because it tries to explain the history.
3) Not only Chilean historians believe that the treaty was in reality aimed against Chile. Also Italian, French, US-American historian and the Chilean Government believe that the treaty was a menace for Chile. See the Cabal mediation about the theme defensive/offensive led by Gigs in this page.
4) Furthermore, the "leads" take the defensive character of the treaty for granted.
I propose:
I am sure, it can be improved.
-- Keysanger ( talk) 11:15, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
I did a check at the reference desk, and they said that the sentence was OK. However, they proposed an even better sentence:
This sounds much better.-- $%MarshalN20%$ ( talk) 18:11, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
Which, leads me to propose this sentence (which the Ref. Lang. Desk of Wikipedia suggested):
What do the rest of you think?-- $%MarshalN20%$ ( talk) 18:56, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
What failure can be there, the treaty was secret.
-- Keysanger ( talk) 20:22, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
As long as the text "explains" the history, the sentence is wrong. And as long as the text says failure for secrecy ... -- Keysanger ( talk) 19:14, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
Your proposal are wrong:
The solution for this issue is closely connected with the result of the Cabal Mediation defensive/offensive. Let us wait for Gigs's recommendation. -- Keysanger ( talk) 19:35, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
I gladly repeat and add some others:
NEW:
That could be enough references for now. -- Keysanger ( talk) 12:43, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
If you say Although Chile was not mentioned in the text of the treaty, its secret nature… you are making an interpretation of the treaty, you are trying to explain the text. That is forbidden for Wikipedians. We present the treaty, as neutral as posible and we reproduce the opinion of historicians about the treaty, taking distance from their opinion. According with, for example Gonzalo Bulnes, it was not the secrecy of the treaty, at least not alone, what made the treaty a menace for Chile. It was a sequence of circumtances (Peruvian naval superiority, Argentine threat in east, Peruvian greed for nitrate and Bolivian need for money). This view is not considered in your its secret nature. Why do you not consider G.Bulnes and the other historians?, why do you consider only Peruvian POV?. Because you do interpret the treaty and use the Peruvian simple-hearted view: Chile was wrong, it was a mistake, we loved Chileans. That doesn't work in history.
Nobody understand the current text, here an example ( [36]):
How could the absence of any mention of Chile in the treaty lead the Chilean government to suspect that the intent was sinister? Surely it was just the secrecy of the proceedings that made them suspicious. (Deor)
And AGAIN, it is not only the Chilean histography. A lot of historians means the same: The treaty was again Chile. I propose to wait until the Cabal Mediation is finished and then to start with a big clean up of the article.
-- Keysanger ( talk) 18:58, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
Although Chile was not mentioned in the text of the treaty, its secret nature and the knowledge of it by Argentine and Brazilian officials led some to conclude that the alliance was directed against Chile.
Although Chile was not mentioned in the text of the treaty, its secret nature and the knowledge of it by Argentine and Brazilian officials led some to conclude that the alliance was directed against Chile.
There is a variety of approaches and tools to use to "read" a text, that is interpret a text. I tell you only fews:
Which one do you want to use for?
Now this are used in Literature, you have to add the the political, economic, historical, military, social circumtances at the time the text as written and interpreted.
You say "Chile was not mentionated", right, it wasn't, but why do you take this approach?. Why was Chile not discarded if Chile had boundary issues with Bolivia and a competition with Peru for the predominance in the south Pacific?. Was Chile targeted?, why didn't Japan or Mongolia react to this treaty? What do your interpretation lacks that can't answer this question?. How can you know that it was this "failure" that "leads" the Chilean Government to this "misunderstanding"?, have one of you the mobile telefon of President Pinto?. Such discussion is a non-ending history. I insist, we must not interprete the treaty. That is the job of the historians. Therefore, among others, Wikipedia forbid such naive attempts.
But I agree, you are right, we should go ahead. I propose:
In 1873 Peru and Bolivia signed a treaty of alliance which guaranteed the independence, sovereignty and the integrity of their territories, and obliged them to defend each other against all foreign aggression and envisaged for others interested nations. An additional clause kept the treaty secret among the allies. Most historians agree that the treaty targeted Chile but disagree about the defensive or offensive (character/nature) of the treaty(ref)Long list of all founded references pros and cons(/ref). The Government of Chile considered the treaty offensive and mentioned it as one of the causes of the war(ref)Letter of the Chilean Gov. to friendly Nations(/ref).
Argentina had begun secret talks with Peru and Bolivia to join the alliance, and the Argentine Chamber of Deputies, in a secret session, approved the law, but the Argentine Senate postponed the matter to 1874. Later Bolivia, Peru and Argentina could not agree about the inclusion of the name of Chile, the exclusion of Brasil and the boundary issues between Argentina and Bolivia in the treaty.
(belated signed) -- Keysanger ( talk) 14:00, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
On February 6, 1873, Peru and Bolivia signed a treaty of defensive alliance which guaranteed the independence, sovereignty and the integrity of their territories, and obliged them to defend each other against all foreign aggression. An additional clause kept the treaty secret among the allies.[7] Argentina had begun talks with Peru and Bolivia to join the alliance, and the Chamber of Deputies, in a secret session, approved the law, but the Argentine Senate postponed the matter to 1874. Chile was not directly mentioned in the text of the treaty, but was not informed about its existence, which leads Chilean historians to believe that the treaty was in reality aimed against Chile.[8]
On February 6, 1873, Peru and Bolivia signed a treaty of defensive alliance which guaranteed the independence, sovereignty and the integrity of their territories, and obliged them to defend each other against all foreign aggression. An additional clause kept the treaty secret among the allies.[7] Argentina had begun talks with Peru and Bolivia to join the alliance, and the Chamber of Deputies, in a secret session, approved the law, but the Argentine Senate postponed the matter to 1874. Although Chile was not mentioned in the text of the treaty, its secret nature and the knowledge of it by Argentine and Brazilian officials led the Chilean government to conclude that the alliance was directed against Chile.[8]
I wrote most of historians only to preevnt POV, but inreality I never found a historian that denies that Chile was the target of the treaty. I mean "target", that is the ground, the reason of the pact, nothing to do with the nature of the pact (defensive/offensive). Can any one says the name of a source that states that Chile was not targeted?
-- Keysanger ( talk) 13:11, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
See issue 32. -- Keysanger ( talk) 19:29, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
Your cite of Markham states how the Chileans used the pact, according to Markham. That is irrelevant now.
The issue now is whether there is a historian that states the treaty wasn't oriented/targeted/regarded to Chile, regardless of the nature defensive/offensive of the pact. All the historians that I read said that the pact was signed because Chile's threat to Peru/Bolivia (a defensive pact) or to menace Chile (an offensive pact). I never found a historian that said "The pact was because of Ecuador/Spain/Brasil/anyOther".
That is was mean as I proposed:
Most historians agree that the treaty targeted Chile but disagree about the defensive or offensive (character/nature) of the treaty
If there is consensus about this point, we can go ahead. -- Keysanger ( talk) 12:28, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
Heavy British capital investment drove development through the area, and most of the exploitation of the coastal region of Atacama was conducted by Chilean companies and British investments.
Please write the text of the sentences supporting your statement. And take care about the period of time regarding the text. I can't read your thoughts -- Keysanger ( talk) 19:10, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
There you see that the Brittish drove the development of the nitrate industry. To think that the Chileans did it alone without help is a mistake. Dentren | Talk 20:25, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
I can not see the text "British drove …", British lead …", "British control …" or the adjective "heavy", "big", "huge" or something like that. Please, tell me, where, in the two showed passages, the authos says that the british "drove". I read that Chileans and Brits together with other europeans did that.
I propose:
-- Keysanger ( talk) 16:54, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
I disagree.
-- Keysanger ( talk) 07:52, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
Can you deliver references that confirm that "British capital leads"?. lead is spanish "conducir", that is the first one, the "leader". I found following information in Handbuch der Geschichte Lateinamerikas, in 3 Vol. by Walther L. Bernecker (Author), Raymond Th. Buve (Author), John R. Fisher (Author), Horst Pietschmann (Author) ( amazon description)
(Chapter writen by Rory Miller, tranlation from Enflish to German of Andrea von Struve) In Vol. 2 , page 649: 5. Peru, Bolivien, Chile 1830-1920
Einen gewissen Anteil an diesem Aufschwung [1873] leistete auch die chilenische "Antofagasta Nitrate Company" (ANC) in Bolivien, an der auch die britische Firma "Antony Gibbs & sons" als Minderheitsaktionärin beteiligt war … Die ANC ist jedoch nicht der einzige Beispiel für Chiles Vordringen in die Wüste. 1870 waren die Chilenen auf neue Silberminen bei Caracoles in Bolivien gestoßen. Darüberhinaus investierten sie neben britischen und deutschen Kapitalgebern in der peruanischen Provinz Tarapaca. …
Translation (by Keysanger):
page 649:
Certain part of the boom [1873, of the nitrate extraction] was achived by the Chilean "Antofagasta Nitrate Company" (ANC) in Bolivia at that the British "Antony Gibbs & sons" took a holding as minority shareholder … The ANC was not the only case of Chilean advance into the desert. 1870 the Chileans found silbermines in Caracoles. Furthermore they [Chileans] invested together with British and German capital in the Peruvian Tarapaca
That is Gibbs & Sons was only a minority holder in the big ANC. We are speaking about the time before the war. After the Chilean occupation of Tarapaca and Antofagasta, there is another history.
I insist. Can you deliver a reliable source that states "before the war British drove the investment"? I am not ready to write without a strong support because the theme is very controversial.
-- Keysanger ( talk) 19:16, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
I am currently having some Internet problems and cannot currently provide a thoughtful reply to your argument, Keysanger. All I can say at this point is that the source that has already been provided does speak about British financial involvement prior to the War of the Pacific, and the other source provided by Dentren states that it was larger than Chilean, Peruvian, and Bolivian capital (individually). By mixing the information provided, which is the "most correct" thing to do in order to prevent plagiarism, the statement is adequately referenced (verifiable) and factual. I ask, why don't you seem so adamant at opposing any sort of British involvement in the war?-- 72.191.215.218 ( talk) 17:05, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
I still don't see any improvement from what Keysanger provides. This still seems to be the best sentence:
"British capital investments drove development through the area, and most of the exploitation of the coastal region of the Atacama was conducted by British-Chilean companies."
The "ANC" was a Chilean-British Company; that's the company that caused the "big problem" to begin with. The second source of keysanger mentions "largely Chilean capital." However, his first source states that Peru had about 53% of capital stock in the region. The original source (the one I provided) states that it was largely British capital that promoted development. Once again, that makes the sentence proposed by Dentren the best one.-- $%MarshalN20%$ ( talk) 16:00, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
Can you support your sentence with reliable sources (please complete: name, page and relevant text)? I dont accept the "leads"
-- Keysanger ( talk) 13:13, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
I think you are running out with arguments. I deleted it because the complete statement is unsupported. Likeminas reinserted it again. I restored the unbiased version. A new reinsert of the unsupported statement would escalete the situation. I would call a Cabal Mediation about the issue and demand directly the intervention of an admin to delete the unsupported sentences.
-- Keysanger ( talk) 10:36, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
Current text of the "Land Campaign" :
Once the naval superiority was achieved, the troops of the Chilean army initiated a series of military maneuvers in the Peruvian provinces of Tarapacá, Tacna, and Arica. The battles of Pisagua, Tacna, and Arica, resulted in Chilean victories that gave Chile control over the Atacama desert. Although the Battle of Tarapacá was an allied victory, it did not change the course of the events in favor of the allies because Bolivia retired from war after the Battle of Tacna,[citation needed] and Peru was left alone to face against Chile.
That is all about the Peruvian and Bolivian lost of their main income?, thousand of deads, and the destruction of the Peruvian regular army?. The issue is also covered in the "Land Campaign" article, but the reader must be informed about the magnitude of the war to understand it. A brief history of the campaign is needed. "maneuvers" is the wrong word for the battles.
-- Keysanger ( talk) 09:45, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
Of course the nitrate industry contnued to work inmediately after the occupation. The text has to:
-- Keysanger ( talk) 13:18, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
I think all of these sections, the "Role of Argentina, the "Role of Great Britain," and the "Role of the United States" should all go into the World Perspectives section. These three long sections should be placed in the "World Perspectives" article, and then we should summarize these things into the "World Perspectives" section of the War of the Pacific article. They all played important roles in the war: The Argentine joining the Peru-Bolivia defensive alliance scared Chile, the British influence in the area is what helped spark the dispute and ended up being pro-Chile (added that the British ended up being the most benefited out of the conflict), the US influence in the area further made things worse by being pro-Peru and encouraging the Peruvians to continue the resistance. However, I'm open to hear other opinions (please remember to keep the discussion peacefully; and I say this because I know that this issue is quite a "troublesome" one).-- $%MarshalN20%$ ( talk) 01:24, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
I believe the roles of the United States and Britain
do not carry the same weight as Argentina’s role.
Both British and American involvement is limited to individuals providing each side with weaponry and money, not governments. As far as the article is concerned, the governments of Britain and the U.S. took an official stance of neutrality and were not involved in any kind of negotiations with either side, however and unlike Britain, the U.S. actively mediated on behalf of Peru.
Argentina’s government on the other hand was directly involved in negotiations with the alliance. Its legislative branch (Chamber of deputies, to be exact) secretly approved that country’s entrance into the alliance, in addition to a budget increase for military expenditures
[39].
So to put things in perspective, let me ask; were the British House of Commons or the U.S. House of Representatives into that level of involvement with any of the belligerent nations?
Now, I read somewhere that Britain was the most benefited, and while I’d like to see specific sources backing that up, we know as a fact that Chile -under the pressure of having to fight on a third country in the south- had to negotiate Argentina’s neutrality in exchange for substantial territories in Patagonia.
[40]Having said that, I’ll leave up to you to decide whom benefited the most from the war, but let us ask ourselves the following;
Did Britain or the U.S. obtain tangible gains (i.e. lands) from any of the belligerents as a direct consequence of the war?
From a
geopolitical point of view, it is also incorrect to place Argentina –a country that shares borders with 2 of the 3 combatants- in the same category as the U.S. and Britain, each at least 5,000 km away from the conflict zone.
I would suggest going back to the older version re-name Argentina’s role as Argentina’s stance and put it somewhere within or after the Crisis section. As for Britain and the U.S., I would place them under World Perspectives.
As for summarizing, I think it can be tricky in terms of what to leave in and what to leave out. So in order to avoid further disputes, I suggest we come up with a consensual version drafted here on the talk page first. I’m not very good at summarizing, but I’m more than willing to help once an initial version is put forward.
By the way, this statement: between 1860 and 1870, Great Britain financed Chile a loan of £1,000 pounds [41] also needs a better source. Likeminas ( talk) 15:25, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
I’m no so sure that source is reliable, despite having a bibliography; it looks like an amateurish website. So, I’d be careful when using it.
In any case, my first question was;
'were the British House of Commons or the U.S. House of Representatives into that level of involvement with any of the belligerent nations? Please, kindly explain and more importantly provide sources in which the British House of Commons approved a secret alliance with Chile.
Again, and –unless a source is provided proving otherwise- when we talk about British or American support for each side, we’re referring to individuals not the governments, which is not the case for Argentina.
As for the statements presented to show British support in terms of weaponry, the relevant statement is backed by rather questionable sources;
Chilean soldiers were said to be equipped with English uniforms and rifles. Source 55: El expansionismo de Chile en el Cono Sur 1) is troublesome as it is used out of context –just a few sentences can be read- (which by the way is another of the issues listed) and is written by Humberto Cayoja Riart -a Bolivian writer- so at the very least that should be noted.
Source 56: Revista Argentina de relaciónes internacionales, Volume 6 Leads to a no preview Google book, therefore, it is not verifiable.
I could go on and list the American weaponry (torpedoes, $18,000 dollar war ships) ,actual combat examples (Stephen Chester launching a torpedo against a small Chilean ship from the Huascar) and the pro-Peruvian mediation attempts by the U.S., and claim American involvement was at the same level as that of Argentina and certainly greater to that of Britain, but I won't. American involvement –again, from individuals- is parallel to that of Britain.
Lastly, I agree that Britain made economic gains as a consequence of the war, but the article (although currently unsourced) talks about British capital leaving the area after the nitrate crisis. Argentina’s territorial gain, on the other hand, was perpetual. And the negotiations (see link above) from which they were obtained -neutrality for land- were a direct consequence of the war developments. The difference between these two is clear. One was a temporary economic gain from a distant nation, while the other was a perpetual gain from a bordering neighbor. Likeminas ( talk) 17:13, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
I am ready to accept any text prevented:
When we write the text we have to discern between States and Persons. If Marshal writes that Britain delivered weapons and uniforms to Chile, then Marshal has to write also who delivered the weapons and uniforms for Peru.
I want to show you another source, Handbuch der Geschichte Lateinamerikas, in 3 Vol. by Walther L. Bernecker (Author), Raymond Th. Buve (Author), John R. Fisher (Author), Horst Pietschmann (Author) ( amazon description)
Rory Miller, tranlation from Enflish to German of Andrea von Struve In Vol. 2 , page 652:
Die Frage nach der Rolle, die ausländischen Interessen in diesem Konflikt spielten, wurden bereits während des Krieges aufgeworfen. Der US_amerikanische Außenminister James G. Blaine stellte 1882 fest: «Es ist eine vollkommene Fehleinschätzung vom einem Krieg zwischen Chile und Peru zu sprechen. Es handelt sich um einen Krieg zwischen Großbritannien und Peru, und Chile leistet nur Handlangerdienste.» Die Kritiker einer ausländischen Einmischung bezogen sich auf pro-chilenischer Aussagen britischer Kaufleute sowie auf Versuche seitens peruanischer Besitzer von Obligationen , die Lieferung von Kriegsausrüstung nach Peru zu verhindern und auf Verhandlungen mit Chile hinzuwirken. Sie verwiesen auf die wachsende britische Kontrolle über die Nitratindustrie, nachdem sie in chilenische Hände gefallen war. Die Klärung dieser Frage wird allerdings durc die Tatsache erschwert, dass Briten, Franzosen und die Vereignigten Staaten nicht gut auf einander zu sprechen waren,(was Blaines Aussagen in Frage stellt), und daß die Privatwirtschaft in allen drei Ländern, ebenso wie in Deutschland, an Lizenzen interessiert war. Obgleich der marxistische Historiker V.G.Kiernan [1955] aufgrund von Dokumenten des Auswärtigen Amtes zu dem Schluß kam, daß die britische Regierung keineswegs in den Krieg verwickelt war, schließt dieser Befund eine Beteiligung privatwirtschaftlicher Interessen nicht aus. Das Schlüßelunternehmen in diesem Bereich war die Firma Antony Gibbs &Sons, die in allen drei Länder über Eigentum verfügte, einschlißlich einer Minderheitsbeteiligung bei der ANC. Das Material aus dem Privatarchiv der Firma (das mittlererweile Wissenschatler in London zugänglich ist) legt den Schluß nahe, daß Antony Gibbs & Sons auf die Entwicklungen, die zum Krieg führten, nicht direkt eingewirkt, sondern lediglich reagiert hatte. Gleichwohl kamm man davon ausgehen, daß das Unternehmen auf die chilenische Regierung Druck ausgeübt hatte, um sie zu einem Protest gegen die bolivianischen Ausfuhrzölle zu bewegen. Sicherlich hatte die Firma auch nichts gegen die Kriegshetze der ANC Anfang 1879 einzuwenden. Nach Übernahme de Nitratlagerstätten in Tarapaca verschlechterten sich Gibbs' Beziehungen zur chilenischen Regierung.
Translation by Keysanger:
The question about the influence of foreign enterprises in the conflict was raised already during the war. The US Foreign Minister James G Blaine affirmed 1882: «It is a complete error to talk about a war between Peru and Chile. In reality it is a war between Peru and Great Britain and Chile is only subworker.» The critic of the foreign influence regarded pro-Chilean statements of British business people and also attempts bondholder Peruvian stocks in order to stop the deliver of materiel to Peru and to work towards peace negotiations with Chile. They refered to the increasing control over the nitrate industrie after the fall of tarapaca to Chile. The answer to this question is more difficult because Brits, Frenchs and the USA were feud with each other. (that questioned Blaines statement) and that the economy of the three countries, and also Germany, was interested an Licences for exploit nitrate. Despite the fact that the marxist historian V.G.Kiernan [1955], because of documents of the foreign office, concluded that the british government was in no way involved in the war, that doesn't exclude a participation of private enterprises. The relevant enterprise in this branche was Antony Gibbs &Sons, having stakes in the three countries, also a minority stakeholder by ANC (Antofagasta Nitrate Company). The documents from the private archiv of the enterprise (now free for scientific research in London) suggest that Antony Gibbs & Sons to the development that led to the war, more reacted that acted [original: nicht direkt eingewirkt, sondern lediglich reagiert hatte ]. Also we can assume that the enterprise applied prssure to the Ch. gov. in order to protest against the tax. Sure, the enterprise had nothing against the warmongering of the ANC at the beginning of 1879. After the occupation of Tarapaca the relations of the enterprise to the Ch.Gov. deteriorated
So I expect a N E U T R A L statement of wikipedians. Or we declare explicit that there are other sources not present in the article.
-- Keysanger ( talk) 13:19, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
Marshal wrote:
If the source states that it was believe that Britain provided armament and uniforms to Chile, that is all that has to be included in the article;
Gigs wrote:
If a statement is contentious among reliable sources, we need to just report who views it one way, and who views it the other way, and refrain from asserting one or the other is reality. We can let the reader make up their own mind after presenting them the evidence in the most neutral way possible.
I prefer Gigs statement. -- Keysanger ( talk) 12:12, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
Text:
Marshal, your sentence is undocumented. Can you find enough reliable sources to support such conclusive sentence. I think, Argentina got Patagonia in consequence of the war and Brasil looked henceforth to defeated immediate neighbors. I was never engaged with the issue but I will accept only serious, reliable and numerous sources. I will prefer to delete such peacockish assertion. Do you agree?
-- Keysanger ( talk) 11:57, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
What say the others Wikipedians? to delete?
-- Keysanger ( talk) 20:24, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
Removed -- Keysanger ( talk) 18:33, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
Current text : However, the real issue is the fear of being dependent on Chile or Peru.
Can anyone give a reference for this statement?
-- Keysanger ( talk) 09:35, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
statements can and should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced. See WP:RS, WP:NRSNVNA Likeminas ( talk) 16:16, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
I think we have waited a reasonable amount of time for someone to provided sources, if they wanted to.
Since July, the statements remain unsourced, as as per WP:V and WP:NRSNVNA removing unreferenced content is not controvertial and doesn't need to be discussed. I will remove those statements accordingly. However, if someone disagrees with the removal please feel free to revert me and re-insert the statements -provided they're properly sourced-. Likeminas ( talk) 19:02, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
Most of the challenged statements have sources. Please do not remove the "challenged" statements if they are sourced. Feel free to delete information that is challenged, but is not properly sourced. Also, the "Land Campaign" section of the article is largely unsourced, but that is because I translated the section from the Spanish Wikipedia. Instead of deleting that section, I suggest that you look for sources to verify the statements. Later, we can work on summarizing that section.-- $%MarshalN20%$ ( talk) 18:54, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
Hello.
Arafael ( talk) 13:33, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
-- Keysanger ( talk) 21:20, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
P.S.: let the "References" at last.
I think you have made your point effectively Arafael. Those things you mention should be implemented into the article.-- //[*]MarshalN20[*]\\ ( talk) 23:27, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
Time is runnig out to amend incomplete references or to write references for unsupported sentences. Every unsourced controversial sentence has to be deleted.
-- Keysanger ( talk) 14:16, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
Please, take care to keep "references" at the bottom of the page -- Keysanger ( talk) 19:31, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
Greetings, I'll made several corrections in this article, one about the looting of the Peruvian National Library, quoted as an act of "confiscation", the Chilean state do not have any right to "confiscate" any cultural artifact from the Peruvian nation, that "right" is not stated or mentioned in any treaty or convention about the behavior of the nations at war from that time, therefore, it was an loot, a robbery allowed by the Chilean government against the Peruvian nation. Second, the destruction of the towns of San Juan, Miraflores, Chorrillos and Barranco was mostly executed by Chilean troops, that is a FACT proved by many sources, the Peruvian soldiers cannot destroy the towns than hours before they defended, and many of them were captured and executed in the streets by the Chilean troops, who not only attack and rape the Peruvian citizens, but also many foreigners than lived in the towns, and example of this is the slaughter of an entire Italian firefighters company in Chorrillos, accused by the Chileans to colaborate with the Peruvian troops. Wikipedia cannot be used as a place to hide or try to change this facts in the History of both nations, I´ll also saw than this article is mainly controlled by Chilean editors, and uses many Chilean sources. Not anymore. The article must be an accurated and neutral review of the facts of the War of the Pacific, not a place of diffusion of this distorted and one-side version of this war. Greetings.-- Cloudaoc ( talk) 04:13, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
I’m not here to make value judgments, and if you want to be in a productive and comfortable editing environment I suggest you refrain from doing so.
If you think or claim that something that is currently sourced is false then you need to provide another source that contradicts it or at least casts doubt on it. As you probably know by now, Wikipepdia relies heavily on verifiability, not word of mouth.
As for the usage of the word confiscate I would first point towards
WP:AVOID and second I would give the definition of the word confiscate, which is (transitive) To take possession of by force or authority; expropriate.
[50]
In any case, no you won’t leave unsourced statements in the article. Please see
WP:V and
WP:OR on why not.
In addition, please visit the
WP:3RR, you’re very close to violating that policy, thus getting blocked.
Likeminas (
talk) 16:54, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
...The soldiers pillaged the library after capturing the Peruvian capital, Lima, in 1881, during the War of the Pacific.
...Relations have been strained ever since the books - 2,500kg (5,500 lbs) of them - were stolen by Chilean soldiers occupying Peru's capital more than 120 years ago.
As war booty, Chile confiscated the contents of the Peruvian National Library in Lima
Here I bring a letter from the Director of the National Library at the time of the ocuppation, Colonel Manuel de Odriosola, who send a letter to the Chilean Government protesting by the systematic looting of the institution on his charge, the letter, dated March 10, 1881 shows how the Chilean high officers were aware of the looting and even promoted it. Here is the letter:
(in Spanish) "Carta de protesta del Bibliotecario de Lima" (PDF).
The Director of the National Library indicates than the collection at the time of the invasion includes at least 50000 books and 800 manuscripts, this numbers must be included in the article to show how little is the fraction of the books returned by the Chilean government, and how much is still in illegal possession by the Chilean nation.
You need more proofs Likeminas? Are you still accusing me of putting false and unsourced information in the Wikipedia? Are you still interested in block my Wikipedia account?. Also, the PDF document which contains the letter, quotes the page 148, Tome III of the book Narración histórica de la guerra de Chile contra el Perú y Bolivia written by Mariano Felipe Paz Soldan in 1884, narrates the next episode:
... desde ese momento principió el saqueo descarado de ese sagrado depósito, se cargaban carros, con toda clase de libros, que se llevaban a casa de los chilenos y alli, después de escoger lo que les convenia, el resto lo vendían en el mercado, al precio de seis centavos libra, para envolver especias y cosas por el estilo.
This paragraph is not only a proof of the looting, but also shows the destruction and alienation of the books of the National Library by Chilean hands, this facts must be part of any article who talks about the Chilean occupation of Lima. You need more Likeminas?, are you still believing than the word "confiscated" is enough to describe the criminal acts of the Chilean Army against the cultural patrimony of the Peruvian Nation? War booty you say? Since when the cultural capitol of a nation is part of the definition of war-booty? The letter of Odriosola describes with clarity the definition of war booty of that time, which includes only the weapons and other items used in warfare. Are you still sustaining your version of the facts Likeminas? Are you still going to blockeade my account? I'll have much more about many others "facts" of this article. This is just the beginning. Greetings.-- Cloudaoc ( talk) 19:49, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
You don’t like Wikipedia’s policies? Then, fight to change them. But as long as they are in place, you will have to follow them. Wether you like them or not.
I previously said that if there are contracting sources, then, a solution would have to be worked out to present them both.
And no, you won’t change the article according to your source and leave out the others.
Doing so, would violate
WP:NPOV,
WP:WEIGHT and
WP:CONS.
So, in view of your rather nasty and uncivilized attitude (despite numerous amicable attempts to pick up the level of the discussion) I have no interest in expanding this discussion with you. I will, however, watch the article for unilateral changes, and if appropriate report them to an administrator. Likeminas ( talk) 18:18, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
In no place of the document is the word "systematically", someone put it in the article because of unknown reasons and wrote a POV sentence. -- Keysanger ( talk) 18:10, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
As stated by Diego Barros Arana in page 100 of his oeuvre "Historia de la Guerra del Pacifico", Vol II, page 99-100 the article 45 of INSTRUCTIONS FOR THE GOVERNMENT OF ARMIES OF THE UNITED STATES IN THE FIELD, aka Lieber Code, Prepared by Francis Lieber, promulgated as General Orders No. 100 by President Lincoln, 24 April 1863 and used by Chile as Law of War (See Diego Barros Arana "Historia de la Guerra del Pacifico", Vol I, page 115) defined that:
Of course, today 2009, this law is right strange for us, but was used in the Civil war of the United States, 1864, and the Lieber code was promulgated as law of war by the government of President Pinto in 1879. That has to be mentionated in this context. Many readers ignore that the law of war is relatively new (since ca. 1850) and has impoved over the intervening years.
-- Keysanger ( talk) 18:48, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
I wrote following contribution to the article, but someone deleted it because of unknown reasons:
At that time there was no binding international law between both countries about this issue. The Chilean government under President Aníbal Pinto Garmendia let print a book "El derecho de la guerra según los últimos progresos de la civilización" with the following laws:
and intructed [30] the officers of the army and the navy to comply with.
Because of the Peruvians claims about the books, the paragraph has to be added to the text. Of course also the Peruvian and Bolivian law of war should be added.
-- Keysanger ( talk) 19:01, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
As war booty, Chile ‘plundered’ the contents of the National Library of Peru
Hi Likeminas, please let me now the references (title, author, year of edition, page, and relevant text) for your proposal.
I read the given reference Enc. Brit [100], but couldn't find such data.
Please use this thread to discuss the books issue.
-- Keysanger ( talk) 15:42, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
copy and paste or not, we NEED reliable references for:
I deleted the given reference to the Enc Brit because it was not verificable. EB was first published between 1768 and 1771 and since in different versions and with thousand of thousand of pages and languages.
The references have to contain name of the book (url), author, year of edition, page nr and relevant text. I don't refuse to write about the library of lima, of course there is the documented restitution of the books, but we want to finish the habit to write "from heart". We write a encyclopaedia, not a polemic pamphlet.
Another point to resolve is the WP:Due weight. It is ridiculous that "the Chilean army initiated a series of military maneuvers in the Peruvian provinces of Tarapacá, Tacna, and Arica. The battles of Pisagua, Tacna, and Arica, resulted in Chilean victories that gave Chile control over the Atacama desert" is all about the land campaign in the main article and the steal of books fill a full paragraph. This is valid also for the issue 35 (destruction of Chorrillos). Both events are to be dealt in proportion of their importance in the war and to the lenght of the article.
In order to lessen the waste of time (discussions about reliability of the source, page nr, relevant text, relation with the topic, etc.), I beg you to deliver good reliable and accesible references, with all data (I repeat: name of the book and/or url, author, year of edition, page number and relevant text). Be sure that your reference absolutly supports the sentence you are propousing and it isn't a vage notice about an similar or near event but not the event self.
It seems pedantic, but it is necessary to impede POV and a bad documented article.
-- Keysanger ( talk) 17:21, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
The sources are very important, but not all the sources are adequate to be used as reference for a neutral point-of-view article, another example of this is the claim than was the Peruvian troops, not the Chilean ones, which destroyed the towns outside Lima. This is one of the most aberrant lines in the present article, because is not only illogical, but also false. This is a facsimil-copy of the last Peruvian newspaper published in Lima one day after the battle of Chorrillos, in January 14, 1881, is part of the collections of documents published in Tome V of the book "Guerra del Pacifico - Recopilacion completa de todos los documentos oficiales, correspondencias i demas publicaciones referentes a la guerra" published in Valparaiso in 1888 by Pascual Ahumada Romero, who narrates the destruction of the towns by the Chilean troops without any significative attemp of his officers to stop it:
Last newspaper published in Lima - January 14, 1881
I'm sure Likeminas than you can read in spanish as well than me, therefore, you can't deny the relevance and importance of this source, I`ll hope than you made the necessary corrections to improve this article with this new evidence. Greetings.-- Cloudaoc ( talk) 20:12, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
If by bias you mean, having a Chilean POV, then that’s OK.
Wikipedia doesn’t require neutrality from the source, but instead from its editors and how they present the material in the article. Please read
WP:NPOV.
If you look at the references currently listed in the article, we have accounts from Peru, Bolivia and Chile. Obviously, not all will have the same analysis and conclusion of a historical event.
In other words, if there are opposing views to a matter, Wikipedia’s neutrality policy requires that we present accordingly those views. Having said, that,
Some sources may be considered reliable for statements as to their author's opinion, but not for statements of fact. A prime example of this are Op-ed columns that are published in mainstream newspapers. When discussing what is said in such sources, it is important to directly attribute the material to its author, and to do so in the main text of the Wikipedia article so readers know that we are discussing someone's opinion.
Please inform yourself with how
Wikipedia works, since these policies are(at least) a pre-requirement to any content dispute or debate.
And also, keep it
cool. I believe I haven’t adopted an aggressive tone towards you. So please, reciprocate.
It will be nicer for all of us.
Likeminas (
talk) 15:49, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
Hi Marshal, please let me now the relevant text that you think support the sentence. -- Keysanger ( talk) 15:44, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
"Se recibieron noticias del Coronel Iglesias i de otras fuentes acerca de las atrocidades cometidas por el Ejercito Chileno en Chorrilos
"La verdadera razon para destruir la propiedad del reclamante i otras propiedades en Chorrillos, parece exponerlas el propio comandante del Ejercito Chileno, cuando en su informe oficial dice lo siguiente:"
"..pues la batalla de Miraflores, es una prueba mas de que si hubiera tratado de dominarlas, en Chorrillos por parte de los oficiales del Ejercito Chileno, no hubiera ocurrido la destruccion de este pueblo junto con una..."
To your question can you affirm than the United States and Chilean Claims Commission is lyng in his report? my answer is YES, the claimer was interestad to demostrate that the Chilean Army was guilty in order to obtain some kind of compensation (dollars) from the Chilean government. We know it from the es:Caso Baltimore that the USA wasn't stingy if they saw (see) challenged his hegemony. But that is my opinion and it isn't important in this question. Relevant is what say the historians. -- Keysanger ( talk) 18:46, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
Hello,
You wrote your own compatriots. I please you to let my intim sphere out of Wikipedia. I don't want to hear more about my person from people that don't know me. I'm not on intimate terms with you. That are the rules of Wikipedia. If you are looking for friends or foes, go to hell. Thank you.
About your "Case Chile-USA"
page 143: deals with "atrocities" What does it means that? Fire, mass executions, looting, rapes? What do you want to write there?. Do you have more reliable sources for?
page 163: That is not an statement that supports "Chileans did the destruction". Please read again. In the first sentence it is unknown who destroyed the property. The phrase announced only the reasons, but, because of unknown reasons, the relevant text is cut there.
page 165: this sentence only states that the Chilean officers didn't stop the destruction but not who did it.
It is hard to demostrate events about we heard at home but when we go out of the box no one knows about it. That are Myths and Legends. You have presented two documents (the newspaper and the case Chile-USA) and in my honest opinion none of them meet the simplest demands of Wikipedia. I was yesterday in the university library thumbing through the books and I found no mention of the destruction of Chorrillos as you presented it. It doesn't mean that there wasn't at all, but it says a lot about the WP:Due weight of the events.
We do remember that after the battle of Chorrillos the Peruvian state entered in a process of disintegration and many social hardships, political and economical disparities fueled tensions in the Peruvian population against particular ethnic groups. Blacks, Chinese, Indians, Meztizos and Europeans were this days living out of the rule of law. It is very easy for the true wrongdoers to claim "the Mapochos did it".
-- Keysanger ( talk) 22:44, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
current text:
After the Chilean invasion of Antofagasta, Hilarión Daza made a presidential decree on March 1, 1879, which demanded the expulsion of Chileans, the nationalizing of Chilean private property and prohibited trade and communications with Chile "as long as the war lasts".[21] Due to its aggressiveness the Chilean government understood the decree as a declaration of war.[22][23] However, although both nations had already taken aggressive actions, in reality no war had yet been formally declared from either side of the conflict.[24][25]
For the non-declaration of war there are ONE reference:
"Historia del Perú" by Atilio Sivirichi, 1932, page 193:
Following given sources say nothing about the non-declaration of war:
"Narracion historica de la Guerra del Pacifico" by Mariano Paz Soldan, page 81:
"Historia ecónomica de Bolivia," Band 2 by Luis Peñaloza Cordero says nothing about
Mesa redonda sobre el problema del litoral boliviano - page 121 by Alcira Cardona Torrico - 1966 - 325 pages
"Historia financiera de Bolivia" page 405 by Casto Rojas - 1916 - 421 pages
"Guerra del Pacífico: los tribunales arbitrales, 1882-1888" by Alejandro Soto Cárdenas
"De la fundación a la Guerra del Salitre" by Juan Pereira Fiorilo
For the declaration of war are:
"Documentary History of the Tacna-Arica dispute, University of Iowa studies in the social sciences, Vol. 8", by William Jefferson Dennis, here, page 69:
(From the editorial: William Jefferson Dennis, the author of this study and an instructor in the State University of Iowa, was resident of Peru from 1917 to 1922 and also visited Chile and Bolivia, this qualification, it is hoped, have enabled him to preserve something of the atmosphere of the controverse without imparing the judicial and impartial spirit of its record.)
Andean Tragedy, William F. Sater, page 39 and page 42:
About William F. Sater : There is no question that Professor Sater is the foremost authority on the War of the Pacific in the English language and probably in any language. here
"Latin America's Wars: The age of the caudillo, 1791-1899" By Robert L. Scheina, page 376.
"Wars and Peace Treaties, 1816-1991", By Erik Goldstein, page 182:
"The history of Chile" By John Lawrence Rector, page 100:
"The geopolitics of security in the Americas: hemispheric denial from Monroe ..." by Martin Sicker here
"A history of Chile" - Page 326, by Luis Galdames, Isaac Joslin Cox - History - 1941 - 565 pages
"Chile and the War of the Pacific" - Page 9 by William F. Sater - History - 1986 - 343 pages
"The Bolivia-Chile-Peru dispute in the Atacama Desert" by Ronald Bruce St. John, Clive H. Schofield here
The consuting was here
The last opinions of the invited were:
I see that the opinion of the invited is We have established that multiple reliable sources say that Bolivia declared war. There are no reasons to change the majority of the documents and insert a "due to agressiveness".
-- Keysanger ( talk) 10:24, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
It is noteworthy that the article lacks a structure that helps the reader to understand the events, the length of time, the places and the importance of the facts.
I will present you a ideal table of contents (TOC) containing all the issues the article deals with, its herarchie and position in the time. Most of the issues are already in the text. Feel free to give your opinion to the tabel.
The War of the Pacific Background
Boundary disputes in South America
Economic interests: Nitrate/Economy
Rivalry Chile/Peru
Treaties
1866 1873 1874 Crisis
The Ten Cents tax
Peruvian Mediation
Occupation of Antofagasta
The War
Naval campaign
Land campaign in Antofagasta and Tarapaca
Invasion of Tacna and Arica
Lynch's Expedition
Battle of Chorrillos and Miraflores
Occupation of Lima
Campaign of La Sierra
Political issues during the war
Collapse of Daza in Bolivia
Collapse of Prado in Peru
Election of Domingo Santa María in Chile
Lackawamma Conference
Government of Montero in Peru
Government of Iglesias in Peru
Peace
Peace treaty with Peru
Peace treaty with Bolivia
Strategy and technology
International law and war delicts
World perspectives
America
Europe
Aftermath
Socioeconomic and territorial consequences
Bolivia
Chile
Peru
Bibliography
See also
References
External links
-- Keysanger ( talk) 17:52, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
We have experienced that the we can find in internet (google) almost every opinion about the war. I won't repeat what for sources are/have been used in the article until now. The War of the Pacific is a controversial article but there are enough serious studies about the war.
In order to get the article out of a mess, we must use ONLY reliable sources.
I recommend William F. Sater "Andean Tragedy" and Bruce W. Farcau "The Ten Cents War" as a good documented works about the war. Sater's book has 442 pages well researched and well organized that constitutes the best one volume account of this tragic war. inclusive 40 pages for notes and 12 pages for bibliography. There is no question that Professor Sater is the foremost authority on the War of the Pacific in the English language and probably in any language.
I think, that any issue or opinion that doesn't appear in this two works arouse suspicion or doesn't merit to be mentioned in Wikipedia.
-- Keysanger ( talk) 12:51, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
As in the Falklands War and WW2 the name of the presidents are to be written under "commanders" because they are the actually military commanders during the war. -- Keysanger ( talk) 11:35, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
I deleted some absurd references like:
reference 21 linked to the (wikisource) Tratado de Limites Ch-B of 1874. That is non-sense because the treaty can be interpreted in different ways. Please be more careful to give refernces. -- Keysanger ( talk) 11:50, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
I must admit I grew tired of the endless discussion and I didn't feel like talking to a wall on an article where progress -let alone collaborative building- was nearly impossible, and I decided it was more productive for me to move on and work on other areas of Wikipedia. I see others felt the same way and also left.
Nonetheless, I won't allow that the information that was diligently collected (including vast amounts of references) that were in the article be sent to oblivion.
Eventually, I will come back to this article, although I don't know when. Perhaps, when the time is right and when editors are willing to cooperate with each other and all the silly nationalisms revolving this subject are left outside of Wikipedia, as it should be. See you all soon. Likeminas ( talk) 18:24, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
Please explain all your claims as precise and accurate as possible and refrain of personal attacks. Thank you, -- Keysanger ( talk) 13:00, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
Unfortunately, your good will, which I have to assume, isn't enough to improve the article. In order to redound to the article "War of the Pacific" you should have read/understand about the war, which I haven't to assume, and I can ask for reliable references. During the discussions about the issues you were unable to contribute with reliable sources (v.g. "Heavy british investment leads") or simply you abandoned (v.g. Gigs's Cabal Mediation). And this situation will remain unchanged also when you call for help more people: Wikipedia isn't a democracy.
Regarding your lapses, if you can only think of people who disagree with in terms of unflattering political stereotypes that is merely a sad reflection upon your own narrow-mindedness. -- Keysanger ( talk) 15:10, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
You continue to assume that Bolivia never declared the war on Chile and try to impose the non sense to other wikipedians. Only for the information of the newbies I write here the rerefernces given in the article:
Because the capital of Bolivia, La Paz, lacked a telegraph connexion abroad the there are different data for declaration of war depending of the place (i.e. the used means of transportation carriage, ship, telegraph abroad) where the new was received. There are two documents about and William F. Sater in "Andean Tragedy", page 28 states:
See also :
You can find both documents here:
So, please stopt deleteing or changing referenced and uncontested information.
-- Keysanger ( talk) 07:22, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
"All of the sources you provide have an erroneous founding for their statement. They hold no knowledge on the Bolivian method of declaring war. They base their interpretation from the Chilean POV; when they should refer to the official Bolivian POV as it is dealing with that particular nation more-so than with Chile. This is one of the cases in which the majority is incorrect. That being said, this article is still a biased piece of worthlesness; it has been destroyed and twisted to fit a specific biased POV. I continue to warn all readers to look at this article and doubt many of the things it presents."
— http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Talk%3AWar_of_the_Pacific&diff=316299677&oldid=316267283 , 13:09, 26 September 2009 , MarshalN20 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Thank you MarshalN20 for freeing us from the darkness, Now we know the ligth of your words, your mind is iluminating our way to the future, please continue your work in other articles, we already free. you are Wikipedia's Liberator!!!, . -- Keysanger ( talk) 16:49, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
I remember to all interested wikipedians that there is the posibility of a "Request of Comment" for every article. If someone of you think that the article lacks neutrality (or any other desired quality), s/he should feel free to make such request. Of course, knowing that my english skills are not perfect, I put the Copy-Edit tag at the beginning of the page. Perhaps some detractor should begins there.
-- Keysanger ( talk) 07:30, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
The "contribution" [51] is another example for contributions of the editor: the relevant text of the reference was deleted and replaced through the opinion of the editor. The editor neither add references for the new text (his/her opinion) nor adapted the text in order to include new references. The only effect of the change, I must assume good faith of the editor, was to make the old text illegible.
By the way, the paragraph being cuestioned was not written by me, I believe I only added the {{Facts}}-tag somewhere down the road. -- Keysanger ( talk) 12:32, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
This page 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. |
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 1 | ← | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 |
Hi, I have volunteered as a neutral mediator per the wp:medcab request filed by MarshalN20. First off, I would like to know if everyone that is involved with this agrees to participate in the mediation. Please indicate so after your name.
Extended content
|
---|
If there are any other interested parties, please add your name and whether you agree or disagree with mediation. I'm not here to take sides, just to try to help you all work it out. Does everyone also agree with framing the question as such: "Was the Peru-Bolivia alliance defensive or offensive?" Please comment below if you disagree that that is the issue. Gigs ( talk) 02:02, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
What comes after this? Should we discuss the matter here or will you, Gigs, create a specific section were you'll monitor the discussion?-- //[*]MarshalN20[*]\\ ( talk) 19:52, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
There is a difference:
The first statement implies the dynamic of interpretation, opportunities and posibilities given by the pact and the circumtances, the second doesn't allow an alternative. I am thinking of the proverb Attack is the best means of defense. I attach great importance to state that both interpretations (defensive/offensive) are posible and of importance for the involved countries and therefore the sentence it was a defensive pact cann't be used. We have to say, like in Venezuela and Hitler-Stalin Pact regarding the official names "bolivarian Republic" and "non-aggression pact" the neutral one officially titled. -- Keysanger ( talk) 21:03, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
Marshal: There can be no dynamic change for a defensive alliance/treaty that had no other use than that. Keysanger: What kind of use, defensive or offensive?. We know that some historians maintain a different view than your. And Wikipedia's source are historians and not opinions of wikipedians. Marshal:The defensive alliance/treaty came into effect only after Chile declared war on Peru and Bolivia. Keysanger: That says nothing about the question defensive or offensive. Hitler invaded Russia 1941 and the Pact is still (2009) officially titled "non-aggression pact". Marshal: Where's the "interpretation" there? Keysanger: That is your personal opinion: The defensive alliance/treaty came into effect …. You again try to explain us why the Pact is defensive. We have to work with sources. Your explain is WP:OR -- Keysanger ( talk) 23:35, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
http://www.quepasa.cl/medio/articulo/0,0,38035857__147601895__1,00.html
Manifest of the Chilean government to the representatives of friendly powers with reference to the declaration of war against Peru. Alejandro Fierro Chilean Ministry of Foreign affairs, Santiago April 12, 1879
The New York times - Current History (1922)
And then these are from Chilean sources. Yes, even some Chileans agree that the Peru-Bolivia defensive alliance was officially defensive (Not just "titled" defensive):
I've read your last paragraph (your last sentence to be more correct). That's the issue I'm still discussing. The treaty/alliance was officially defensive throughout its existance. I think that by this point everyone agrees that Chile perceived the alliance and treaty as a menace. However, perceptions are not answers for the verifiable truth. For instance, here's a thought experiment:
In this story, it should be accepted that the color blind man sees the blue as gray. However, it should be noted that the room was officially blue. This is exactly the same thing going on with the Peru-Bolivia defensive alliance:
The sources provided that claim the Peru-Bolivia alliance to be an offensive-defensive alliance are incorrect. If it is established that the Peru-Bolivia alliance is defensive, why is it correct for them to change the meaning of a document to their liking? Both the actions Peru took and the document itself are not offensive. The http://www.congreso.gob.pe/ntley/Imagenes/LeyesXIX/1866144.pdf Peru-Chile offensive-defensive alliance] stands as a point of comparisson. Not only is the Peru-Chile alliance "officially titled" offensive-defensive, but it is also officially used as an offensive-defensive alliance. Similarly, not only is the Peru-Bolivia alliance "officially titled" defensive, but it is also officially used as a defensive alliance.-- //[*]MarshalN20[*]\\ ( talk) 23:15, 17 July 2009 (UTC) Example of a real Offensive-Defensive Alliance User:Arafael provided me with a real example of a true "Offensive-Defensive" Alliance: In 1866, Peru and Chile signed an offensive-defensive alliance.-- //[*]MarshalN20[*]\\ ( talk) 21:11, 17 July 2009 (UTC) The Peru-Bolivia Defensive Alliance has nothing in common with a real "Offensive-Defensive" alliance. Which leads me once again to say: Chile saw the Peru-Bolivia alliance as a menace, but what they saw should not be taken as an "official" fact of the document. The official document of the Peru-Bolivia alliance certifies that the alliance was officially defensive. And, of course, that's not my original research; I have provided plenty of sources that also agree that the alliance was defensive. I'll go search for more if I have time.-- //[*]MarshalN20[*]\\ ( talk) 21:11, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
Please, help me to follow you. You wrote:
Who is the blind man? ( ????? ) Who are the painters? (…Peru and Bolivia, the "painters,…") Who are the Non-color blind people? (Reliable sources demonstrate that people agree …) Please, help me and answer: Who is the blind man? Do you think it is neutral to considerer Chile blind and Peru in health? -- Keysanger ( talk) 00:48, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
|
Since there doesn't seem to be agreement over the framing of the issue, I'd like you each to describe the issue, as you see it, as a short question that is 15 words or less. Please don't reply to or rebut other users framing of the question just yet. If you can't make the 15 word cutoff, that's OK, just keep it as short as possible. Gigs ( talk) 13:25, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
Extended content
|
---|
My position is rather simple;
If there are reliable sources that the treaty was defensive, then that should be included in the article. On the other hand if there are realible sources stating that the treaty was iterpreted, seen or thought as other than defensive then that should be also included. By balancing POV's from all sides we'll reach a NPOV. In other words, the issue (in my opinion) is mainly about sources and NPOV.
Sources issue We first have to establish what we have reached, that became diffuse after my discussion with Marshal. I hope we agree that there are enough reliable sources for both sides. "The treaty was defensive" and "the treaty was offensive and defensive" and "the treaty was interpreted as offensive by the Chilean government" or similar. Likeminas, Marshal and Keysanger (me) agree that if such sources exists they have to be presented to the reader. I think there is concordance about. To let the sources unpublished would be an attempt against the Wikipedia. Start issue The second issue is about the start of the paragraph:
I think that is the real issue now, and the question is: Which of the three options implement better with Wikipedia's neutrality imperative. -- Keysanger ( talk) 20:57, 17 July 2009 (UTC) Gigs, do you understand Spanish text? -- Keysanger ( talk) 21:36, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
We are talking at cross-purposes. Gigs wants to obtain a binding question to answer. I propose to fix concordances and Likemina and Marshal discusse about defensive issues and every one sets different aims to be reached. It doesn't make sense. We need to schedule a discussion path. -- Keysanger ( talk) 00:12, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
I'd like to see what Arafel says before we go on, I will leave a message on their talk page that we are waiting on them. I know this process is a little slow, but we don't want one person to come back at the end and say that they completely disagree with the direction we've taken. Gigs ( talk) 00:59, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
|
We have waited several days for Arafel to provide input, I think we should move on.
Does everyone agree with the following statement?
It doesn't seem to me that this fact is in dispute, ignoring the matter of the true nature of the alliance (we'll get to that next), right?
Extended content
|
---|
Next up:
I know this one is indeed in dispute, and is almost the entire dispute. I have a few comments/proposals:
Please respond to each comment as a separate issue. Please try to keep it short and don't let it turn into a long debate here, so that we can keep it readable. Gigs ( talk) 02:03, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
I read somewhere "Keysanger says that ...", "Keysanger means this ...". I want to state clearly and without any compromise that I represent my self and I do not allow any person to represent my opinion in this discussion. I warn the partner that such "representations" may be phantasies of the writers. -- Keysanger ( talk) 18:05, 24 July 2009 (UTC) Keysanger's opinion:
Wikipedia shouldn't decide through logical und/or semantical analisys whether the pact was defensive/offensive because such analisys lacks the political, economic and military circumstances and implications of the pact. Wikipedia have to use reliable sources. -- Keysanger ( talk) 21:12, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
To point 1) I have to correct that not only the Chilean Government but different international reliable sources interpreted the treaty as defensive and/or offensive and as a menace for Chile. To point 2) I think Marshal wants to judge the treaty with ethical values. He wants to say "the treaty was good and defensiv" but that is not possible in a encyclopaedia unless it is a issue without controversy and this is not the case. Now Marshal wants references for other issue "the use of the treaty". We can discuss also about "the consecuences of the treaty" (good/bad) or "international impact of the treaty" (important/irrevelant), or "the importance of the treaty in the logistic of the war" (high/low) or … . That may be very interesting issues, but I fear I haven't enough time for. We are discussing now whether the
Let's hang in there. I will not abuse of Gigs's friendliness and we (M and K) have a lot of work to do. Later we can look for further themes to discuss. -- Keysanger ( talk) 19:58, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
|
Hi Marshal,
Do you agree that
(pay attention to "offensive to Chile", it is more precisely than to any country)
I, Keysanger, agree this 3 points and as far as I'm concerned, we have resolved the case if you agree.
About the new question, The treaty, and the alliance, was only used defensively. I don't know. I never heard such opinion. You are the first one but you live and learn. You know already my references. Let me know your refrences with author name, publisher, year of publishing, total number of pages of the book, page number of the passage and the relevant passage. Please don't resent me that bits and pieces, such work is usual for enciclopedic works.
I agree also: If a statement is contentious among reliable sources, we need to just report who views it one way, and who views it the other way, and refrain from asserting one or the other is reality. We can let the reader make up their own mind after presenting them the evidence in the most neutral way possible.
-- Keysanger ( talk) 00:12, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
I think that is incorrect but if Gigs wants to mediate also this issue, I don't mind. You have to deliver the references for your item (4). --
Keysanger (
talk) 01:45, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
You must write the text passage supporting your statement. -- Keysanger ( talk) 15:10, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
"Tommaso Caivano" is used correctly. I repeat my statement about Caivano:
Tommasso Caivano (9) doesn't call the treaty offensive, only reproduces Diego Barros Arana's view and states that a treaty is subject of interpretations. That is what I want to state.
So you discovered nothing new but you overlooked again the last part of the sentence: and states that a treaty is subject of interpretations. That is what I want to state.
Would you be so kind to let us read the relevant text of your first source now? -- Keysanger ( talk) 17:14, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
Hello again, I am back. Has there been any discussion elsewhere of this issue during my absence, or are we still at the same place? Gigs ( talk) 11:35, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
There hasn't been any direct contribution of this issue during your absence. Marshal was unable to deliver any reliable sources for his 4. sentence "The treaty was only used defensively". The text "The Republic of Peru decrees that the casus foederis mentioned in the Treaty of the 6th of February, 1873, with Bolivia has arrived; and, consequently, the time has come when the alliance must come into effect with all its stipulations."" in no way supports the biased sentence.
So, as far as I'm concerned, we agree that :
-- Keysanger ( talk) 11:03, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
You're lying on what has been thus far agreed. That's just shameful. The treaty was not "offensive to Chile." That's your personal bias and that of Chilean historians.
That's what has been agreed. If you don't want the 4th point, fine, I won't argue it as (like I said above) I'm tired of this discussion. However, don't try to sneak in personal nationalist bias into what has already been agreed.-- $%MarshalN20%$ ( talk) 15:54, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
As you like it:
So, I think the issue is now cleared.
-- Keysanger ( talk) 11:43, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
Thank you Gigs, -- Keysanger ( talk) 10:37, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
I have re-named the newly created section. I don’t agree with the World perspectives and much less with the forked section Argentina.
Argentina -as it is well documented- played a very prominent role priorior, during and after the war. It was not a mere World viewer, but an active negotiator and possible member of the secret Bolivia-Peru alliance. It’s also well known that Argentina had an ongoing dispute with Chile for territories in Patagonia.
Here’s how the archive of the Argentine foreign ministry puts it [11]:
Sin embargo, a pesar de su neutralidad en la guerra del Pacífico, las autoridades argentinas no dejaron de jugar un rol importante en el delicado equilibrio de fuerzas del Cono Sur, y especialmente relevante en relación a las naciones "menores" en términos de poder en la subregión. Así, la cancillería argentina emprendió una serie de acciones diplomáticas apuntadas a evitar que Chile pudiera obtener grandes ganancias, sobre todo territoriales, a costa de los países vencidos, Perú y Bolivia. En la base de la actitud argentina estaba el temor a que, luego de la victoria sobre Perú y Bolivia, Chile buscara expandirse sobre territorio argentino. La percepción predominante en los hombres del gobierno argentino, durante las décadas de 1870 y 1880, respecto de su situación de inferioridad de fuerzas militares en comparación con las de Chile había contribuido a exacerbar dicho temor.
However, despite its neutrality in the Pacific war, the Argentine authorities did not fail to play an important role in the delicate balance of forces in the Southern Cone, and particularly relevant in relation to the "minor" nations in terms of power in the sub-region. Thus, the Argentine Foreign Ministry launched a series of diplomatic actions aimed at preventing that Chile could gain big profits, especially land, at the expense of the defeated countries, Peru and Bolivia.
On the basis of that attitude Argentina was under the fear that after the victory over Peru and Bolivia, Chile could seek to expand on Argentine territory. The prevailing perception among men in the Argentine government during the 1870s and 1880s, for their inferior status of military forces in comparison with those of Chile helped to exacerbate the fear.
I believe the section called Role of Argentina in the war, Argentina's stance or something of that kind is more appropriate.
I, however, will leave the other sections under characteristics of the war.
Likeminas ( talk) 01:05, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
Always fill in the summary field. This is considered an important guideline. Even a short summary is better than no summary. An edit summary is even more important if you delete any text; otherwise, people may question your motives for the edit. Also, mentioning one change but not another one can be misleading to someone who finds the other one more important; add "and misc." to cover the other change(s).
Accurate summaries help people decide whether it is worthwhile for them to check a change. We've found that summaries often pique the interest of contributors with expertise in the area. This may not be as necessary for "minor changes", but "fixed spelling" would be nice even then.
There apparently is, yet again, another problem. This time it comes from the lead. This is what I have recently written for the lead:
The War of the Pacific, occurring from 1879-1883, was a conflict between Chile and the joint forces of Bolivia and Peru. Also known as the " Saltpeter War," the war arose from disputes over the control of territory that contained substantial mineral-rich deposits. After a taxation controversy in a territory disputed by Chile and Bolivia, the crisis worsened following the Chilean invasion of Bolivian territory and the discovery of a secret defensive alliance between Bolivia and Peru. The war officially began on 1879, after the Chilean declaration of war and the activation of the casus foederis of the defensive treaty between Peru and Bolivia. The conclusion of the conflict ultimately led to the Chilean annexation of the Peruvian Tarapaca department and Arica province, as well as the Bolivian department of Litoral, leaving Bolivia as a landlocked country.
However, Keysanger reverted this and instead wrote this for the lead:
The War of the Pacific, occurring from 1879-1883, was a conflict between Chile and the joint forces of Bolivia and Peru. Also known as the " Saltpeter War", the war arose from disputes over the control of territory that contained substantial mineral-rich deposits. The crisis worsened after a taxation controversy in a territory disputed by Bolivia and Chile, Chile invaded Bolivian territory and discovered the existance of a secret alliance between Bolivia and Peru. The war officially began on 1879, after the Bolivian declaration of war and the activation of the casus foederis of the defensive treaty between Peru and Bolivia. The conclusion of the conflict ultimately led to the Peruvian and Bolivian cession of the Peruvian Tarapaca department and Arica province, as well as the Bolivian department of Litoral, leaving Bolivia as a landlocked country. [14]
Instead of actually improving the lead, he creates a horrible grammatic error and deletes/adds things based on his POV. Once again, how can WP:GF be assumed after such edits?-- //[*]MarshalN20[*]\\ ( talk) 13:47, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
Here are some points of comparisson:
I'm thinking about creating a picture of the most "well known" or outstanding commanders of the War of the Pacific. I'd be using Wikipedia's picture of them, since most of their pictures here are past their copyright status (thus leaving them free for public use). However, I'd like to hear some opinions. Should I make a large combination of all the military commanders, or split them up among the nations (One for Chile, one for Peru, and one for Bolivia, and maybe one for the foreigners)? Any other opinions would be good.-- //[*]MarshalN20[*]\\ ( talk) 20:38, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
Marshall recently created a highly POV section, using "sources" from a ultra nationalistic website called Peru Heroico or "Heroic Peru" They should be removed immediately as per WP:RS and WP:NPOV
Likeminas ( talk) 14:04, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
We have unsolved issues :
The present version [16] of article reflects mainly Marshals view of the facts. Attempts to improve the article has been reverted by Marshal. I have to warn the reader about a biased description of the facts.
-- Keysanger ( talk) 23:01, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
Clearly, Marshall is tweaking the article and pushing his POV now. What's more aggravating, is that he's doing so with highly questionable websites such as www.peruheroico.com and even adding Chilean racism into it.
Likeminas ( talk) 23:28, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
Marshal leads almost always every objective discussion into a personal issue. He ignores the arguments of the other people and starts dubious sentences about the opponent:
mainly if he cann't find a answer to the problems of his argumentation. To my contribution he answered:
That has nothing to do with the problem of the neutrality. What a sense makes the sentence "Chile is scared of mice"?.
Also about the secret clausel of the alliance treaty he did this statement, not in the right ballpark, I asked him again and he tried to correct but he missed by a mile [17]. I asked him to finish the discussion and to reach an agreement about the issue [18] and a second time in [19] but he never answered.
That are only two flowers in Marshal's garden. He led the way with non-Neutrality statements (Chile=blind, Peru=healthy) , dubious sources (peruheroico.com) and individual-related expressions (You seem to be a little agitated) or to deviate the discussion to themes beside the point (You're going to tell me that Chile isn't racist?) .
On this way we will never improve the article. We have to go on and get a consensus in this article, based on the 5 pillars of wikipedia.
I propose to lock the article page until we get an agreement. Or at least we should agree not to makes changes that could be contested.
We will discusse the issues one after the other.
The POV-tag remain in.
-- Keysanger ( talk) 13:31, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
Before this escalates into something bigger, let's cool down for a moment. I personally have no interest in getting personal with anyone here. I think we should just stick to the issues and avoid any confrontation at a personal level. I hope we can all agree, that in a more cordial environment it is way more enjoyable and efficient to contribute to the betterment of the article.
At the same time I'd like to stress the need for specific information regarding sources.
There might me more issues that need to be addressed, so please feel free to add them. And again, Let’s discuss content, not the editor.
Likeminas ( talk) 15:05, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
"Some people say..." "Some argue..." "Contrary to many..." "Research has shown..." "...is claimed to be..." "...is thought to be..." "It is believed that..." "It is rumored that..." "Some feel that..." "Critics/experts say that..." "It is claimed..." "It has been reported that..." "It is generally considered that..." Anthropomorphisms like "Science says ..." or "Medicine believes ..."
That's a list of some of the weasel words.-- //[*]MarshalN20[*]\\ ( talk) 15:48, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
Marshal, I don't know if you realize it but you deleted this sourced sentence, not once but twice [21], [22]. I'm sure you're aware that deletion of sourced material without justification amounts to vandalism. I will, once again, restore the sentence. Likeminas ( talk) 18:46, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
I get a book with a seldom title: span id="btAsinTitle"La emigración europea a la América Latina. There is no access to the text of the book. -- Keysanger ( talk) 20:00, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
That source -I'm afraid- was used in a rather deceptive manner. How can the statement, for which that source was used, be corroborated without accessing the relevant book page(s)?
Adding fraudulent sources is a worrying precedent, which I must say, does not do a lot in the realm of good faith.
Likeminas ( talk) 15:47, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
That's interesting because you previously claimed it “opened perfectly” and that it “took only a few seconds”
[23] but when other users including myself tried to open it we got nothing but this span id="btAsinTitle"La emigración europea a la América Latina. Then you said you were “working” on fixing the link
[24] and when
Keysanger got the same results as me, you advised us to “to use the search engine within the book” which implies that the book was accessible (at least by you).
Now you claim it is “library book”?
Then why then not say that from the very beginning?
Why fix a link that cannot be fixed?
And more intriguingly how are we supposed to use the search engine within a library book?
Likeminas (
talk) 18:39, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
Peruvian POV Although in a condition of numerical inferiority, Miguel Grau, the commander of the Huáscar, managed to hold-off all of the Chilean navy for six months. Among the most outstanding actions of these " Excursions of the Huáscar" are the Battle of Antofagasta (May 26, 1879) and the Second Battle Antofagasta (August 28, 1879).
Not only does Grau capture the ship, but also captures the cavalry regiment Carabineros de Yungay which was on board.
besides being WP:POVthis edit [25] deletes sourced, relevant information it breaks wikilinks, and blantly lacks any sources
This is not an improvement, and I'm reverting it to the previous version.
PS:Actually I won't be able to revert it because of times issues now, but that section needs to be worked out. Here's a good source for the naval campaign: http://books.google.com/books?id=mswNUZ4w0iwC&pg=PA132&dq=naval+war+chile+peru&ei=KWlmSsLNJJ6SygS80-mmBA starting on page 128 Likeminas ( talk) 01:19, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
Wow. How is it "Peruvian POV"? the Naval campaign section is much better than the broken-up strips of information that were not a summary of the naval conflict.-- $%MarshalN20%$ ( talk) 01:25, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
the sentence
is contradictory with the next sentences:
There are of course other battles and uses of the navies after the battle of angamos. I request to delete or change first sentence (The Battle of Angamos marks the end …)
-- Keysanger ( talk) 11:36, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
Deleted -- Keysanger ( talk) 13:45, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
The sentence During the War of the Pacific, Chile was backed morally and financially by the British Empire. is backed by two references:
Looking the second of them we can state that, apart from that the column is somthing like a blog without any academic label, the only sentence regarding some kind of backing is En ambos episodios [Falkland war, War of the Pacific] como todos sabemos, los gobernantes chilenos han estado en una espuria complicidad con los británicos..
There is nothing to sustain the backed morally and financially.
The given reference ( http://www.elcorreo.eu.org/esp/article.php3?id_article=3426 ) is more or less a blog site and have to replaced by a reliable source, relativized or deleted.
-- Keysanger ( talk) 14:40, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
The lackawamma conference doesn't belong to the Land Campaign. I reinserted it into the main article.
-- Keysanger ( talk) 14:40, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
The Lackawamma Conference is part of the Land Campaign?.
Which is the name of the battle? Lackawamma battle?
The Conference belongs absolutly to the main article.
-- Keysanger ( talk) 10:27, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
Why do you put the LC in the Land Campaign? Do you see a batle there? -- Keysanger ( talk) 20:06, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
It's part of the land campaign. We're not making a list of battles, we're doing a summary of the most important events of the Land Campaign. The Lackawama Conference is not important enough to hold its own section: The negotiations were a failure (It didn't resolve the war, therefore it's not important for a section of its own). However, it is important in the sense of it being "a part of" the wide view of the events. In the summary given to it, a paragraph on its own, all the important points of the conference are covered.-- $%MarshalN20%$ ( talk) 20:51, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
Once the article gets into a position where it exceeds the capacity of 82 KB, it becomes completely obvious that a summary of the events is necessary in certain sections of the article. Please read Wikipedia:Article size. I know that some of you would like to include even the name of the grandmothers of the participants in the war, but sadly, certain specific things need to slowly be put into a separate article.
For example, the section Land campaign and invasion already holds its own article. If you wish to expand on that, go to its own article and expand the information there. As for the article, it should only hold a summary of the events. User:Keysanger (I have to single him out) has turned this section into a Wikipedia:Content forking. If this user wants to include things such as the "Lackawana Conference" in the article, it should be done in one elaborated sentence that goes straight to the point. Per Wikipedia:Article size, I will revert the information back to the summary-style that used to be in place.
And no, Keysanger, it's not that I have anything against you or that you're an "opponent." There are some basic Wiki rules that have to be followed. If you want to see this article promoted to "GA Status," the page has to be at about 82 KB. There are only very few and rare exceptions that Wikipedia allows for more, but this article does not need it.--MarshalN20.14:57, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
Hi Marshal,
You deleted a lot of information about the circumtances of Prado's trip to Panamathe and Putsch Pierola against Prado. All this information was referenced and it is uncontested. Remember that to delete referenced information can be considered vandalism. Would you be so kind to rewrite this important data to the main article.
-- Keysanger ( talk) 10:37, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
To your information Prado was the president of Peru at the begining of the war.
Pierola was the President of Peru at the Batle of Chorrillos.
Do you know how get pierola president?
-- Keysanger ( talk) 20:08, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
Besides, the ships (which Peru also got from Britain) and money (which Peru got from France) how does British role equal that of Argentina?
Did the British parlament also sign into a secret alliance with Chile?
The section violates POV content fork and undue weight. Likeminas ( talk) 15:56, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
I restored to the older version of this article.
The changes recently made to the article, with the inclusion of fraudulent sources
[26] is much more contentious than it previously was.
The new version loaded with POV edits heavily done by a single user is not an improvement.
I would like to improve this article, as I assume all of you want. But to do that, we nee to have a rational and dispassionate discussion that focuses on content rather than the user. That’s why I propose we discuss any major changes before they’re implemented in the article.
This approach will allow us to raise questions of relevance, due weight and sources before they’re inserted in the article, which in turn, will reduce the chances of that content being challenged in the future.
I invite all contributors of this article to go an read the Spanish version as it serves a good example of a dispassionate and rather neutral looking article.
http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guerra_del_Pac%C3%ADfico
Likeminas ( talk) 16:24, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
I support plenty Likeminas's doing. The article was awkfully biased in wording, theme selection, weight of the facts, seriousness of sources, etc.
Our failed attempts to improve the article will remain in the repository of wikipedia and can be recovered if we get a consensus about the use. But unfortunately most of them are not appropriate to build a consensus.
I am open minded for any proposal. Let's improve the article within the rules of wikipedia.
-- Keysanger ( talk) 17:11, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
Marshal, it doesn't make sense to discuss about the old biased article. It was imposible to reach consensus on this base. I agreed to the creation, but not to this monstrosity (importance of Argentina= importance Great Britain), to mention only one of the failures of the old article.
I propose:
1) to elaborate a "table of contents" based in recognized books about the War of the Pacific. I find "Andean Tragedy" of (?) a possible choice. I think that is easy because all good authors agree on the main themes.
2) to make a rough estimate of the lenght for every theme
3) to write and cite from well known authors, with page number and a short passage of the relevant text to avoid misunderstandings and to give the interested reader a glance of the authors view. No more blogs, or 800 pages books without the position of the support sentence, no more contested websites.
4) I think for daring thesis we can let a "Analisys" chapter at the end of the article, but announcing to the reader that it is thesis.
5) but first and foremost we have to keep cool. No personal attacks. No You are ... but your proposal is ....
I am sure we can get it.
-- Keysanger ( talk) 17:52, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
Blaine was denounced at home as a bellicose meddler and corrupt practitioner of “guano diplomacy”, who sought to make a financial killing by supporting the specious claims of unscrupulous entrepreneurs and hustler to guano deposits in Peru. Charges for which he was later investigated
The list goes on but those are few of the proven accusations and the main reason of why the last version of the article was highly POV and needed to be discussed.
Likeminas ( talk) 18:04, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
Those are your opinions. You deleted 34,000 bytes of sourced material, and you'll have to explain yourself to high authorities if you continue with such nonsense.-- $%MarshalN20%$ ( talk) 20:07, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
Marshall,
you screwed things up. You have added already to the article 28 problems and I will not accept your changes without explicit consensus of the editors. Stop your edits without consensus.
-- Keysanger ( talk) 19:11, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
Marshal, your work has been very contentious and have brought the article a lot of pov tags and others. You keep adding on to the Peruvian POV. Your duty is to write a neutral article. So, please stop adding more biased sentences to the article, with other without references.
-- Keysanger ( talk) 10:48, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
In regards to the last addition, I think it's necessary to include page numbers for the relevant text, and this link http://www.unirbolivia.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=blogcategory&id=6&Itemid=168 needs to point out which magazine is the one being used. Likeminas ( talk) 20:39, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
Let Arafael does his duty. Your duty is not to write an article but to write a neutral article. -- Keysanger ( talk) 13:38, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
This article is getting turned into a carnival of tags!-- $%MarshalN20%$ ( talk) 18:05, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
{{multiple issues}}
tag? Dentren | Talk 18:39, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
Sure, ehm, Dentren?-- $%MarshalN20%$ ( talk) 18:33, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
right its me. Dentren | Talk 18:39, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
Yay! I thought it was the cookie monster for a second. lol.-- $%MarshalN20%$ ( talk) 18:43, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
The reader have to be warned about the issues of the article. I told already that the article is awfully biased. Now you see waht taht means. --
Keysanger (
talk) 19:50, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
You have reinstalled your biased version after Likeminas restored a less contentious version. See the list of flaws and and accept that your view of the history is contested. The reader has to be warned about the problems of the article and in fact about all the problems. Don't hide the faults, Wikipedia works with transparency.
-- Keysanger ( talk) 00:31, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
What list of flaws? Why do you keep trying to push your personal agenda? Likeminas made a mistake in removing 34,000 bytes of sourced information; that's understandeable as we are human beings. Both me and Likeminas have agreed to come to more friendly terms. However, you keep vandalizing the article by adding a series of tags that can be easily summarized in one. Moreover, you're comparing my re-addition of 34,000 bytes of sourced information to your vandalism. The sourced information I have added is contested because you want to push your personal agenda against it. Well Keysanger, the sad thing for you is that you will not be able to delete sourced information unless you manage to somehow find other sourced information that can dispute it. That's how Wikipedia works.-- $%MarshalN20%$ ( talk) 00:48, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
The solution is simple. The flaws are there, let the warnings there. -- Keysanger ( talk) 00:59, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, I wasn't logged. 85.177.77.249 is my IP. Now you have it. Keysanger dit it!.
-- Keysanger ( talk) 01:32, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
The reader has to be warned. Every tag alludes to a significant and different non-conformance in the article:
So every tag is necessary, lack of wake-up call could be misunderstood by the reader.
-- Keysanger ( talk) 18:57, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
It is not vandalism, we have to attract editors with different viewpoints because we need additional insight. -- Keysanger ( talk) 17:58, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
Now there are only 3 tags. I think that is enough for both sides and the editwar over. -- Keysanger ( talk) 18:03, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
I see that there is ongoing dispute between Likeminas and MarshalN20.. Can you just bring up the level the discussion? I propose you both to discuss all disputed paragraphs here one by one as compact as possible. Its very difficult ofr an outsider to catch up the dispute. I propose that the sentences and paragraphs that are agreed here to be poorly sourced should be left in the article for 1 month (with a tag) and be remover afterward if they are still badly sourced.
Issue nr | Text | Problem | Status | Petitioner | date |
1 | Cáceres's troops faced against the better equipped and armed Chilean troops with the usage of archaic weaponry such as machetes, spears, clubs, stones, and few old muskets. | Ultra-nationalistic source | resolved | Dentren | 29.07.2009 |
2 | After a taxation controversy in a territory disputed by Chile and Bolivia, the crisis worsened following the Chilean invasion of Bolivian territory and the discovery of a secret defensive alliance between Bolivia and Peru | Weasel words | resolved | Keysanger | 29.07.2009 |
3 | The conclusion of the conflict ultimately led to the Chilean annexation of the Peruvian Tarapaca department and Arica province, as well as the Bolivian department of Litoral, leaving Bolivia as a landlocked country. | annexation is not the word used in the Treaty of Ancon( http://es.wikisource.org/wiki/Tratado_de_Ancón): Artículo 2º: La República del Perú cede a la Republica de Chile, perpetua e incondicionalmente, … | resolved | Keysanger | 29.07.2009 |
4 | treaty of defensive alliance | on going discussion | open | Keysanger | 29.07.2009 |
5 | Chile was not directly mentioned in the text of the treaty, but was not informed about its existence, which leads Chilean historians to believe that the treaty was in reality aimed against Chile | Weasel words: Chile was not directly mentioned is presented as fact, what is true, but Chileans are presented as blind, they dont understand. | open | Keysanger | 29.07.2009 |
6 | Chile was not directly mentioned in the text of the treaty, but was not informed about its existence, which leads Chilean historians to believe that the treaty was in reality aimed against Chile | Do not considerer the interpretation of the secret by the Chilean Government at that time, not only the chilean historians. | open | Keysanger | 29.07.2009 |
7 | Heavy British capital investment drove development through the area, and most of the exploitation of the coastal region of Atacama was conducted by Chilean companies and British investments | Sentence is POV (British drove Chileans) and lacks reliable reference | open | Keysanger | 29.07.2009 |
8 | Role of Argentina | No need for it to be part of "crisis." Argentina did not join the alliance and did not do anything more outstanding than Great Britain, Brazil, France, the United States and all the other nations in the "World Perspectives" section (where they all should go). | open | Marshal | 29.07.2009 |
9 | and told him that it was not offensive to Chile. | POV: Why is there this statement and no Chilean statements about the agressiveness of the treaty? | open | Keysanger | 29.07.2009 |
10 | Role of Great Britain | simply pushed too hard: GB did not declared the war to Peru, did not sell weapons to CH or PE or BO during the war Unbalanced POV + Undue weight under Crisis section |
open | Keysanger | 29.07.2009 |
11 | The climax of the excursions was the capture of the steamship Rímac | What is means with Climax: In general, a climax (from the Greek word “κλῖμαξ” (klimax) meaning “staircase” and “ladder”) is a point of greatest intensity or force in an ascending series; i.e., a culmination. The term "climax" has many specific connotations and uses in English:
|
open | Keysanger | 29.07.2009 |
12 | Once the naval superiority was achieved, the troops of the Chilean army initiated a series of military maneuvers in the Peruvian provinces | according with http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/maneuvers maneuvers doesn't fit to the events: tausend of people dead or injured, Peru and Bolivia lost their main income source. Are that maneuvers | open | Keysanger | 29.07.2009 |
13 | Once the naval superiority was achieved, the troops of the Chilean army initiated a series of military maneuvers in the Peruvian provinces of Tarapacá, Tacna, and Arica. The battles of Pisagua, Tacna, and Arica, resulted in Chilean victories that gave Chile control over the Atacama desert. Although the Battle of Tarapacá was an allied victory, it did not change the course of the events in favor of the allies because Bolivia retired from war after the Battle of Tacna,[citation needed] and Peru was left alone to face against Chile. | That is all about the Land Campaign in the main article. compare with the Role of Great Britain | open | Keysanger | 29.07.2009 |
14 | The Lynch expedition, the Lackawamma conference, The putsch Pierola against Prado, etc, etc , until the ending of the war, all that is only under one title: Land Campaign | The reader needs some clues to better understanding of the matter. The article needs more titles and subtitles. I added that but they were deleted by Marshal | open | Keysanger | 29.07.2009 |
15 | Peru's Tarapacá province was ceded to the victor and Bolivia was forced to cede Antofagasta. | POV: was forced | open | Keysanger | 29.07.2009 |
16 | uprising forced the puppet regime | POV: puppet | open | Keysanger | 29.07.2009 |
17 | Peru took the initiative and utilized its smaller but effective navy | POV: effective | open | Keysanger | 29.07.2009 |
18 | When retreating, Allied forces made sure that little if any assets remained to be used by the enemy | POV Non-sense, facts | open | Keysanger | 29.07.2009 |
19 | Massive raidings from demoralized Peruvian soldiers and invading Chilean forces destroyed several Peruvian towns and cities across the coastline. | Facts? | open | Keysanger | 29.07.2009 |
20 | The history of the Peruvian Politics (Prado-Pierola-Calderon-Caceres-Montero) was partially deleted by Marshal | must be there | open | Keysanger | 29.07.2009 |
21 | Summarized US Role vs. Non-Summarized | Likeminas keeps reverting the summarized version to the long one. | open | Marshal | 29.07.2009 |
22 | Role of the United States | Summarized version of events is better for the article, just as with all of the other sections being summarized. Some users want to keep it long because of their childish rants and attempts to push their POV. | open | Marshall | 29.07.2009 |
23 | |||||
24 | Usage of Ultra Nationalistic Websites | Heroic Peru (www.peruheroic.com), with our Peru (www.connuestroperu.com) | resolved | Likeminas | 29.07.2009 |
25 | Use of excerpts from Google books | Very likely to be used out of context if only a few sentences are can be read | open | Likeminas | 29.07.2009 |
26 | In South America, the War of the Pacific was not well-received. | facts? | text removed | Keysanger | 29.07.2009 |
27 | Italian immigrants in Peru complained about the murder and plunder of their property by Chilean troops to the Italian government which eventually sent three warships to help protect its citizens.[117] Italy's greatest contribution to the war would be through its immigrants, who would serve as medics and firemen in Peru, but a great rift took place between the Chilean and Italian governments when 11 Italian firemen, who were attempting to put out fires and help wounded Peruvian soldiers, were killed by Chilean troops after the Battle of Chorrillos.[118] Italian immigrants in Chile would face further hostility after the Chilean army reported that as many as 700 Italians had fought alongside Peruvians in the Battle of San Juan and Miraflores, which was a claim that was, according to Peruvian historian Jorge Basadre, false and, according Italian historian Tomas Caivano, a cover-up for the murder of Italians by Chilean troops.[118] | Biased text because it doesn't mention all the data given in the book page 103 | open | Keysanger | 29.07.2009 |
28 | However, the real issue is the fear of being dependent on Chile or Peru. | [citation needed] | text removed | Keysanger | 29.07.2009 |
29 | Aftermath: Chile | 1)Victory was, however, a mixed blessing.[citation needed] (Opinion and unsourced) 2)British involvement and control of the nitrate industry rose significantly after the war,[126] leading them to meddle in Chilean politics and ultimately to back an overthrow of Chilean President José Manuel Balmaceda in 1891(needs to be verified by more reliable sources) 3)Economic data regarding the slowing the country's industrial development, the British companies left the country, leaving a large number of unemployment behind and Chilean popular belief sees this as a territorial loss of almost half a million square miles (need to be verified by reliable sources or removed.) | open | Likeminas | 29.07.2009 |
30 | Appropiate weight and promince in the roles of Argentina, Britain and the U.S. | Were the goverments of Arg. GB and the US directly involved in negotiations with each of the combatant nations? What were the ineterests of these nations? What aid that these countries gave can be corroborated via reliable sources? What was their declared and official stance on the war and what was their tacit one? | open | Likeminas | 29.07.2009 |
31 | At the exchange of these economic gains, Chile faced a series of social problems. According to Erika Beckman, Professor of Latin American studies at the University of Chicago, Chilean state actors justified the war with racist rhetoric. Chilean historian Diego Barros Arana argues that the Chilean elite saw itself as "the British of South America," while viewing its northern neighbors (Bolivia and Peru) as people of inferior races.[127] | The current version deals with Chilean racism but it lacks any mention of the racism within the Peruvian society | open | Keysanger | 30 July 2009 |
32 | Clements Markham | Clements Markham must be auted as a Peru-biased author. reference: W.F. Sater, "Andean Tragedy", University of Nebraska Press, 2007, page 91: The admittedly Pro-Peruvian Clemens Markman … |
open | Keysanger | 30 July 2009 |
33 | Map of the war | Puna de Atacama is incorrectly depicted in the map in the current map. | open | MarshalN20 | 25 August 2009 |
34 | In 1874, Chile and Bolivia superseded the boundary treaty signed in 1866 with a new boundary treaty granting Bolivia the authority to collect full tax revenue between the 23rd and 24th parallels, fixing the tax rates on Chilean companies for 25 years and calling for Bolivia to open up. | Elaborate on "Open Up" (What exactly does it mean?) | open | MarshalN20 | 25 August 2009 |
35 | After the battle there were fires and sackings by demoralized Peruvian soldiers in the towns of Chorrillos and Barranco. | The source used to prove this lines is questionable, and there is new evidence and more direct sources than shows than was the Chilean troops, not the Peruvian ones, the responsables of the destruction of both towns | Open | MarshalN20 Cloudaoc |
25 August 2009 |
36 | The Peruvian capital, Lima, at that point an aristocratic city, lived disconnected from the rest of Peru and completely underestimated the war situation. This contributed to a destabilization of its political class and prevented an effective defensive preparation against the Chilean landing just south of the city. | unsupported sentences | open | Keysanger | 25 August 2009 |
37 | Books | confiscated | open | Cloudac | 29 August 2009 |
38 | After the Chilean invasion of Antofagasta, Hilarión Daza made a presidential decree on March 1, 1879, which demanded the expulsion of Chileans, the nationalizing of Chilean private property and prohibited trade and communications with Chile "as long as the war lasts".[21] Due to its aggressiveness the Chilean government understood the decree as a declaration of war.[22][23] However, although both nations had already taken aggressive actions, in reality no war had yet been formally declared from either side of the conflict.[24][25] | There are a lot of sources that state the Bolivian declaration of war but the text makes a Original research and states that there was no DoW | open | Keysanger | 30 August 2009 |
This page, [34], is used to source issue nr 1. This site is not reliable since it is ultra-nationalistic, perhaps etno-cacerista. The site describes the war as a war of robbery and pillage (rapiña), the occupation of Peru as unhonorable and shameful (ignominioso) and says that the a Chilean extermination and destruction in Lima is proper of war criminals and is a preamble to the Nazi practises in Europe. However the claim about the weapons used by Caceres troops may be true, and should be investigated, and sourced trough proper sources. Dentren | Talk 07:56, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
The word worsened aplied to the Chilean response to the Bolivian facts is POV -- Keysanger ( talk) 13:11, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
No personal attacks. -- Keysanger ( talk) 16:48, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
If it doesn't matter, then I will change the order of the adjetives. -- Keysanger ( talk) 16:48, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
How is it resolved? You:
In other words, the usage of the word "worsened" goes both to the Chilean invasion of Bolivian territory and the discovery of the secret defensive alliance between Bolivia and Peru. Which makes me repeat the question, how is it POV?-- $%MarshalN20%$ ( talk) 16:59, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
After a taxation controversy in a territory disputed by Chile and Bolivia, the crisis was followed by a Chilean invasion of Bolivian territory and the discovery of a secret defensive alliance between Bolivia and Peru Has anybody problems with this version of the text? Dentren | Talk 17:23, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
It is POV because assign to Chile the blame of the "the situation worsened". I agree Dentren's proposal. -- Keysanger ( talk) 17:41, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
Yes, you are right. you would clearly see that the "worsened" part is going for both the invasion of Antofagasta and the discovery of the secret treaty. The first part (invasion of Antofagasta) blames Chile.
Next personal attack and I will think it’s necessary that an administrator intervenes. -- Keysanger ( talk) 17:52, 29 July 2009 (UTC) I hope Marshal has understand now what is wrong. We use Dentren's proposal as consensus:
-- Keysanger ( talk) 17:56, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
MArshal I understand your point of view, but tell me whats wrong with the other version? I made it not because I believed that "worsened" was a totally flawed, but to avoid "qualifiers". Dentren | Talk 18:16, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
All I see from Keysanger's opinion is that he does not want the Chilean invasion of Antofagasta to be seen as making the matter worse. How can it not make the matter worse? It would be like saying that Germany's invasion of the Czech zone of Czechoslovakia did not make the crisis prior to WW II worse. It's illogical. Moreover, the "worse" part is mentioning both the discovery of the secret defensive alliance (which is Peru and Bolivia's creation) and the invasion of Antofagasta. In other words, no single country is being aimed. Do you understand?-- $%MarshalN20%$ ( talk) 18:29, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
Not a satisfactory objection by Marshall. Logic tells us that in a sequence of events, one event must be followed and preceded by another. In addition, usage of qualifiers (weasel wording) such as “worsened” is discouraged by Wikipedia’s rule. Likeminas ( talk) 18:40, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
I replaced the sentence with Dentren's first proposal. -- Keysanger ( talk) 18:59, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
After a taxation controversy in a territory disputed by Chile and Bolivia, the crisis was deepened after the Chilean occupation of Bolivian territory and the discovery of a secret defensive alliance between Bolivia and Peru
I don't like the current version and I am not alone. Despite my poor english knowledge, others agree that ( [35]):
"worsened" or "deepened" doesn't change the quality. It is bad quality. I will make a proposal in the next days. -- Keysanger ( talk) 18:23, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
I see two possible ways of saying it: Peru ceded or Chile annexed. Ceded is the wording of the treaty, but wikipedia does not need to follow it exactly, annexed on the other side is correct to. IIs this relevant? Ask any Chilean historian, Chile annexed Tarapaca, and ask any Peruvian historian the Peruvian government (in Lima?) had to cede Dentren | Talk 18:36, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
Peru ceded Tarapaca, and Bolivia ceded its Litoral department; as a result of the war That is right. How would you denominate the Arica handing over?. Please sumarize, -- Keysanger ( talk) 19:03, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
Arica was first occupied by Chile but then ultimately ceded by Peru. Dentren | Talk 19:08, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
Marshall accepted Cession. Resolved -- Keysanger ( talk) 19:17, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
How's that for consensus?-- $%MarshalN20%$ ( talk) 19:20, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
You wrote:
-- Keysanger ( talk) 19:45, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
I disagree. -- Keysanger ( talk) 19:50, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
Is this issue resolved?-- $%MarshalN20%$ ( talk) 20:24, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
Can anybody explain to me what the problem is in "Issue N. 5"? I've tried reading it a couple of times, but I don't understand the problem.-- $%MarshalN20%$ ( talk) 01:26, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
The text is:
1) There is a unlogical but joining two sentences:
It doesn't make sense to say " … but … " because the second sentence (was not informed about its existence) doesn't contradict or correct the first sentence (Chile was not directly mentioned in the text of the treaty). In this case you could say " … and … ".
2) Wikipedia's duty Wikipedia:Five pillars is not to explain the history ( or what lead the Chileans/Peruvian/Bolivians historians). Wikipedia's duty is to expone the facts and the knowledge of the historians about it, and that, with reliable sources and not original research. The word "lead" is out of place because it tries to explain the history.
3) Not only Chilean historians believe that the treaty was in reality aimed against Chile. Also Italian, French, US-American historian and the Chilean Government believe that the treaty was a menace for Chile. See the Cabal mediation about the theme defensive/offensive led by Gigs in this page.
4) Furthermore, the "leads" take the defensive character of the treaty for granted.
I propose:
I am sure, it can be improved.
-- Keysanger ( talk) 11:15, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
I did a check at the reference desk, and they said that the sentence was OK. However, they proposed an even better sentence:
This sounds much better.-- $%MarshalN20%$ ( talk) 18:11, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
Which, leads me to propose this sentence (which the Ref. Lang. Desk of Wikipedia suggested):
What do the rest of you think?-- $%MarshalN20%$ ( talk) 18:56, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
What failure can be there, the treaty was secret.
-- Keysanger ( talk) 20:22, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
As long as the text "explains" the history, the sentence is wrong. And as long as the text says failure for secrecy ... -- Keysanger ( talk) 19:14, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
Your proposal are wrong:
The solution for this issue is closely connected with the result of the Cabal Mediation defensive/offensive. Let us wait for Gigs's recommendation. -- Keysanger ( talk) 19:35, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
I gladly repeat and add some others:
NEW:
That could be enough references for now. -- Keysanger ( talk) 12:43, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
If you say Although Chile was not mentioned in the text of the treaty, its secret nature… you are making an interpretation of the treaty, you are trying to explain the text. That is forbidden for Wikipedians. We present the treaty, as neutral as posible and we reproduce the opinion of historicians about the treaty, taking distance from their opinion. According with, for example Gonzalo Bulnes, it was not the secrecy of the treaty, at least not alone, what made the treaty a menace for Chile. It was a sequence of circumtances (Peruvian naval superiority, Argentine threat in east, Peruvian greed for nitrate and Bolivian need for money). This view is not considered in your its secret nature. Why do you not consider G.Bulnes and the other historians?, why do you consider only Peruvian POV?. Because you do interpret the treaty and use the Peruvian simple-hearted view: Chile was wrong, it was a mistake, we loved Chileans. That doesn't work in history.
Nobody understand the current text, here an example ( [36]):
How could the absence of any mention of Chile in the treaty lead the Chilean government to suspect that the intent was sinister? Surely it was just the secrecy of the proceedings that made them suspicious. (Deor)
And AGAIN, it is not only the Chilean histography. A lot of historians means the same: The treaty was again Chile. I propose to wait until the Cabal Mediation is finished and then to start with a big clean up of the article.
-- Keysanger ( talk) 18:58, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
Although Chile was not mentioned in the text of the treaty, its secret nature and the knowledge of it by Argentine and Brazilian officials led some to conclude that the alliance was directed against Chile.
Although Chile was not mentioned in the text of the treaty, its secret nature and the knowledge of it by Argentine and Brazilian officials led some to conclude that the alliance was directed against Chile.
There is a variety of approaches and tools to use to "read" a text, that is interpret a text. I tell you only fews:
Which one do you want to use for?
Now this are used in Literature, you have to add the the political, economic, historical, military, social circumtances at the time the text as written and interpreted.
You say "Chile was not mentionated", right, it wasn't, but why do you take this approach?. Why was Chile not discarded if Chile had boundary issues with Bolivia and a competition with Peru for the predominance in the south Pacific?. Was Chile targeted?, why didn't Japan or Mongolia react to this treaty? What do your interpretation lacks that can't answer this question?. How can you know that it was this "failure" that "leads" the Chilean Government to this "misunderstanding"?, have one of you the mobile telefon of President Pinto?. Such discussion is a non-ending history. I insist, we must not interprete the treaty. That is the job of the historians. Therefore, among others, Wikipedia forbid such naive attempts.
But I agree, you are right, we should go ahead. I propose:
In 1873 Peru and Bolivia signed a treaty of alliance which guaranteed the independence, sovereignty and the integrity of their territories, and obliged them to defend each other against all foreign aggression and envisaged for others interested nations. An additional clause kept the treaty secret among the allies. Most historians agree that the treaty targeted Chile but disagree about the defensive or offensive (character/nature) of the treaty(ref)Long list of all founded references pros and cons(/ref). The Government of Chile considered the treaty offensive and mentioned it as one of the causes of the war(ref)Letter of the Chilean Gov. to friendly Nations(/ref).
Argentina had begun secret talks with Peru and Bolivia to join the alliance, and the Argentine Chamber of Deputies, in a secret session, approved the law, but the Argentine Senate postponed the matter to 1874. Later Bolivia, Peru and Argentina could not agree about the inclusion of the name of Chile, the exclusion of Brasil and the boundary issues between Argentina and Bolivia in the treaty.
(belated signed) -- Keysanger ( talk) 14:00, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
On February 6, 1873, Peru and Bolivia signed a treaty of defensive alliance which guaranteed the independence, sovereignty and the integrity of their territories, and obliged them to defend each other against all foreign aggression. An additional clause kept the treaty secret among the allies.[7] Argentina had begun talks with Peru and Bolivia to join the alliance, and the Chamber of Deputies, in a secret session, approved the law, but the Argentine Senate postponed the matter to 1874. Chile was not directly mentioned in the text of the treaty, but was not informed about its existence, which leads Chilean historians to believe that the treaty was in reality aimed against Chile.[8]
On February 6, 1873, Peru and Bolivia signed a treaty of defensive alliance which guaranteed the independence, sovereignty and the integrity of their territories, and obliged them to defend each other against all foreign aggression. An additional clause kept the treaty secret among the allies.[7] Argentina had begun talks with Peru and Bolivia to join the alliance, and the Chamber of Deputies, in a secret session, approved the law, but the Argentine Senate postponed the matter to 1874. Although Chile was not mentioned in the text of the treaty, its secret nature and the knowledge of it by Argentine and Brazilian officials led the Chilean government to conclude that the alliance was directed against Chile.[8]
I wrote most of historians only to preevnt POV, but inreality I never found a historian that denies that Chile was the target of the treaty. I mean "target", that is the ground, the reason of the pact, nothing to do with the nature of the pact (defensive/offensive). Can any one says the name of a source that states that Chile was not targeted?
-- Keysanger ( talk) 13:11, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
See issue 32. -- Keysanger ( talk) 19:29, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
Your cite of Markham states how the Chileans used the pact, according to Markham. That is irrelevant now.
The issue now is whether there is a historian that states the treaty wasn't oriented/targeted/regarded to Chile, regardless of the nature defensive/offensive of the pact. All the historians that I read said that the pact was signed because Chile's threat to Peru/Bolivia (a defensive pact) or to menace Chile (an offensive pact). I never found a historian that said "The pact was because of Ecuador/Spain/Brasil/anyOther".
That is was mean as I proposed:
Most historians agree that the treaty targeted Chile but disagree about the defensive or offensive (character/nature) of the treaty
If there is consensus about this point, we can go ahead. -- Keysanger ( talk) 12:28, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
Heavy British capital investment drove development through the area, and most of the exploitation of the coastal region of Atacama was conducted by Chilean companies and British investments.
Please write the text of the sentences supporting your statement. And take care about the period of time regarding the text. I can't read your thoughts -- Keysanger ( talk) 19:10, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
There you see that the Brittish drove the development of the nitrate industry. To think that the Chileans did it alone without help is a mistake. Dentren | Talk 20:25, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
I can not see the text "British drove …", British lead …", "British control …" or the adjective "heavy", "big", "huge" or something like that. Please, tell me, where, in the two showed passages, the authos says that the british "drove". I read that Chileans and Brits together with other europeans did that.
I propose:
-- Keysanger ( talk) 16:54, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
I disagree.
-- Keysanger ( talk) 07:52, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
Can you deliver references that confirm that "British capital leads"?. lead is spanish "conducir", that is the first one, the "leader". I found following information in Handbuch der Geschichte Lateinamerikas, in 3 Vol. by Walther L. Bernecker (Author), Raymond Th. Buve (Author), John R. Fisher (Author), Horst Pietschmann (Author) ( amazon description)
(Chapter writen by Rory Miller, tranlation from Enflish to German of Andrea von Struve) In Vol. 2 , page 649: 5. Peru, Bolivien, Chile 1830-1920
Einen gewissen Anteil an diesem Aufschwung [1873] leistete auch die chilenische "Antofagasta Nitrate Company" (ANC) in Bolivien, an der auch die britische Firma "Antony Gibbs & sons" als Minderheitsaktionärin beteiligt war … Die ANC ist jedoch nicht der einzige Beispiel für Chiles Vordringen in die Wüste. 1870 waren die Chilenen auf neue Silberminen bei Caracoles in Bolivien gestoßen. Darüberhinaus investierten sie neben britischen und deutschen Kapitalgebern in der peruanischen Provinz Tarapaca. …
Translation (by Keysanger):
page 649:
Certain part of the boom [1873, of the nitrate extraction] was achived by the Chilean "Antofagasta Nitrate Company" (ANC) in Bolivia at that the British "Antony Gibbs & sons" took a holding as minority shareholder … The ANC was not the only case of Chilean advance into the desert. 1870 the Chileans found silbermines in Caracoles. Furthermore they [Chileans] invested together with British and German capital in the Peruvian Tarapaca
That is Gibbs & Sons was only a minority holder in the big ANC. We are speaking about the time before the war. After the Chilean occupation of Tarapaca and Antofagasta, there is another history.
I insist. Can you deliver a reliable source that states "before the war British drove the investment"? I am not ready to write without a strong support because the theme is very controversial.
-- Keysanger ( talk) 19:16, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
I am currently having some Internet problems and cannot currently provide a thoughtful reply to your argument, Keysanger. All I can say at this point is that the source that has already been provided does speak about British financial involvement prior to the War of the Pacific, and the other source provided by Dentren states that it was larger than Chilean, Peruvian, and Bolivian capital (individually). By mixing the information provided, which is the "most correct" thing to do in order to prevent plagiarism, the statement is adequately referenced (verifiable) and factual. I ask, why don't you seem so adamant at opposing any sort of British involvement in the war?-- 72.191.215.218 ( talk) 17:05, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
I still don't see any improvement from what Keysanger provides. This still seems to be the best sentence:
"British capital investments drove development through the area, and most of the exploitation of the coastal region of the Atacama was conducted by British-Chilean companies."
The "ANC" was a Chilean-British Company; that's the company that caused the "big problem" to begin with. The second source of keysanger mentions "largely Chilean capital." However, his first source states that Peru had about 53% of capital stock in the region. The original source (the one I provided) states that it was largely British capital that promoted development. Once again, that makes the sentence proposed by Dentren the best one.-- $%MarshalN20%$ ( talk) 16:00, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
Can you support your sentence with reliable sources (please complete: name, page and relevant text)? I dont accept the "leads"
-- Keysanger ( talk) 13:13, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
I think you are running out with arguments. I deleted it because the complete statement is unsupported. Likeminas reinserted it again. I restored the unbiased version. A new reinsert of the unsupported statement would escalete the situation. I would call a Cabal Mediation about the issue and demand directly the intervention of an admin to delete the unsupported sentences.
-- Keysanger ( talk) 10:36, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
Current text of the "Land Campaign" :
Once the naval superiority was achieved, the troops of the Chilean army initiated a series of military maneuvers in the Peruvian provinces of Tarapacá, Tacna, and Arica. The battles of Pisagua, Tacna, and Arica, resulted in Chilean victories that gave Chile control over the Atacama desert. Although the Battle of Tarapacá was an allied victory, it did not change the course of the events in favor of the allies because Bolivia retired from war after the Battle of Tacna,[citation needed] and Peru was left alone to face against Chile.
That is all about the Peruvian and Bolivian lost of their main income?, thousand of deads, and the destruction of the Peruvian regular army?. The issue is also covered in the "Land Campaign" article, but the reader must be informed about the magnitude of the war to understand it. A brief history of the campaign is needed. "maneuvers" is the wrong word for the battles.
-- Keysanger ( talk) 09:45, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
Of course the nitrate industry contnued to work inmediately after the occupation. The text has to:
-- Keysanger ( talk) 13:18, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
I think all of these sections, the "Role of Argentina, the "Role of Great Britain," and the "Role of the United States" should all go into the World Perspectives section. These three long sections should be placed in the "World Perspectives" article, and then we should summarize these things into the "World Perspectives" section of the War of the Pacific article. They all played important roles in the war: The Argentine joining the Peru-Bolivia defensive alliance scared Chile, the British influence in the area is what helped spark the dispute and ended up being pro-Chile (added that the British ended up being the most benefited out of the conflict), the US influence in the area further made things worse by being pro-Peru and encouraging the Peruvians to continue the resistance. However, I'm open to hear other opinions (please remember to keep the discussion peacefully; and I say this because I know that this issue is quite a "troublesome" one).-- $%MarshalN20%$ ( talk) 01:24, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
I believe the roles of the United States and Britain
do not carry the same weight as Argentina’s role.
Both British and American involvement is limited to individuals providing each side with weaponry and money, not governments. As far as the article is concerned, the governments of Britain and the U.S. took an official stance of neutrality and were not involved in any kind of negotiations with either side, however and unlike Britain, the U.S. actively mediated on behalf of Peru.
Argentina’s government on the other hand was directly involved in negotiations with the alliance. Its legislative branch (Chamber of deputies, to be exact) secretly approved that country’s entrance into the alliance, in addition to a budget increase for military expenditures
[39].
So to put things in perspective, let me ask; were the British House of Commons or the U.S. House of Representatives into that level of involvement with any of the belligerent nations?
Now, I read somewhere that Britain was the most benefited, and while I’d like to see specific sources backing that up, we know as a fact that Chile -under the pressure of having to fight on a third country in the south- had to negotiate Argentina’s neutrality in exchange for substantial territories in Patagonia.
[40]Having said that, I’ll leave up to you to decide whom benefited the most from the war, but let us ask ourselves the following;
Did Britain or the U.S. obtain tangible gains (i.e. lands) from any of the belligerents as a direct consequence of the war?
From a
geopolitical point of view, it is also incorrect to place Argentina –a country that shares borders with 2 of the 3 combatants- in the same category as the U.S. and Britain, each at least 5,000 km away from the conflict zone.
I would suggest going back to the older version re-name Argentina’s role as Argentina’s stance and put it somewhere within or after the Crisis section. As for Britain and the U.S., I would place them under World Perspectives.
As for summarizing, I think it can be tricky in terms of what to leave in and what to leave out. So in order to avoid further disputes, I suggest we come up with a consensual version drafted here on the talk page first. I’m not very good at summarizing, but I’m more than willing to help once an initial version is put forward.
By the way, this statement: between 1860 and 1870, Great Britain financed Chile a loan of £1,000 pounds [41] also needs a better source. Likeminas ( talk) 15:25, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
I’m no so sure that source is reliable, despite having a bibliography; it looks like an amateurish website. So, I’d be careful when using it.
In any case, my first question was;
'were the British House of Commons or the U.S. House of Representatives into that level of involvement with any of the belligerent nations? Please, kindly explain and more importantly provide sources in which the British House of Commons approved a secret alliance with Chile.
Again, and –unless a source is provided proving otherwise- when we talk about British or American support for each side, we’re referring to individuals not the governments, which is not the case for Argentina.
As for the statements presented to show British support in terms of weaponry, the relevant statement is backed by rather questionable sources;
Chilean soldiers were said to be equipped with English uniforms and rifles. Source 55: El expansionismo de Chile en el Cono Sur 1) is troublesome as it is used out of context –just a few sentences can be read- (which by the way is another of the issues listed) and is written by Humberto Cayoja Riart -a Bolivian writer- so at the very least that should be noted.
Source 56: Revista Argentina de relaciónes internacionales, Volume 6 Leads to a no preview Google book, therefore, it is not verifiable.
I could go on and list the American weaponry (torpedoes, $18,000 dollar war ships) ,actual combat examples (Stephen Chester launching a torpedo against a small Chilean ship from the Huascar) and the pro-Peruvian mediation attempts by the U.S., and claim American involvement was at the same level as that of Argentina and certainly greater to that of Britain, but I won't. American involvement –again, from individuals- is parallel to that of Britain.
Lastly, I agree that Britain made economic gains as a consequence of the war, but the article (although currently unsourced) talks about British capital leaving the area after the nitrate crisis. Argentina’s territorial gain, on the other hand, was perpetual. And the negotiations (see link above) from which they were obtained -neutrality for land- were a direct consequence of the war developments. The difference between these two is clear. One was a temporary economic gain from a distant nation, while the other was a perpetual gain from a bordering neighbor. Likeminas ( talk) 17:13, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
I am ready to accept any text prevented:
When we write the text we have to discern between States and Persons. If Marshal writes that Britain delivered weapons and uniforms to Chile, then Marshal has to write also who delivered the weapons and uniforms for Peru.
I want to show you another source, Handbuch der Geschichte Lateinamerikas, in 3 Vol. by Walther L. Bernecker (Author), Raymond Th. Buve (Author), John R. Fisher (Author), Horst Pietschmann (Author) ( amazon description)
Rory Miller, tranlation from Enflish to German of Andrea von Struve In Vol. 2 , page 652:
Die Frage nach der Rolle, die ausländischen Interessen in diesem Konflikt spielten, wurden bereits während des Krieges aufgeworfen. Der US_amerikanische Außenminister James G. Blaine stellte 1882 fest: «Es ist eine vollkommene Fehleinschätzung vom einem Krieg zwischen Chile und Peru zu sprechen. Es handelt sich um einen Krieg zwischen Großbritannien und Peru, und Chile leistet nur Handlangerdienste.» Die Kritiker einer ausländischen Einmischung bezogen sich auf pro-chilenischer Aussagen britischer Kaufleute sowie auf Versuche seitens peruanischer Besitzer von Obligationen , die Lieferung von Kriegsausrüstung nach Peru zu verhindern und auf Verhandlungen mit Chile hinzuwirken. Sie verwiesen auf die wachsende britische Kontrolle über die Nitratindustrie, nachdem sie in chilenische Hände gefallen war. Die Klärung dieser Frage wird allerdings durc die Tatsache erschwert, dass Briten, Franzosen und die Vereignigten Staaten nicht gut auf einander zu sprechen waren,(was Blaines Aussagen in Frage stellt), und daß die Privatwirtschaft in allen drei Ländern, ebenso wie in Deutschland, an Lizenzen interessiert war. Obgleich der marxistische Historiker V.G.Kiernan [1955] aufgrund von Dokumenten des Auswärtigen Amtes zu dem Schluß kam, daß die britische Regierung keineswegs in den Krieg verwickelt war, schließt dieser Befund eine Beteiligung privatwirtschaftlicher Interessen nicht aus. Das Schlüßelunternehmen in diesem Bereich war die Firma Antony Gibbs &Sons, die in allen drei Länder über Eigentum verfügte, einschlißlich einer Minderheitsbeteiligung bei der ANC. Das Material aus dem Privatarchiv der Firma (das mittlererweile Wissenschatler in London zugänglich ist) legt den Schluß nahe, daß Antony Gibbs & Sons auf die Entwicklungen, die zum Krieg führten, nicht direkt eingewirkt, sondern lediglich reagiert hatte. Gleichwohl kamm man davon ausgehen, daß das Unternehmen auf die chilenische Regierung Druck ausgeübt hatte, um sie zu einem Protest gegen die bolivianischen Ausfuhrzölle zu bewegen. Sicherlich hatte die Firma auch nichts gegen die Kriegshetze der ANC Anfang 1879 einzuwenden. Nach Übernahme de Nitratlagerstätten in Tarapaca verschlechterten sich Gibbs' Beziehungen zur chilenischen Regierung.
Translation by Keysanger:
The question about the influence of foreign enterprises in the conflict was raised already during the war. The US Foreign Minister James G Blaine affirmed 1882: «It is a complete error to talk about a war between Peru and Chile. In reality it is a war between Peru and Great Britain and Chile is only subworker.» The critic of the foreign influence regarded pro-Chilean statements of British business people and also attempts bondholder Peruvian stocks in order to stop the deliver of materiel to Peru and to work towards peace negotiations with Chile. They refered to the increasing control over the nitrate industrie after the fall of tarapaca to Chile. The answer to this question is more difficult because Brits, Frenchs and the USA were feud with each other. (that questioned Blaines statement) and that the economy of the three countries, and also Germany, was interested an Licences for exploit nitrate. Despite the fact that the marxist historian V.G.Kiernan [1955], because of documents of the foreign office, concluded that the british government was in no way involved in the war, that doesn't exclude a participation of private enterprises. The relevant enterprise in this branche was Antony Gibbs &Sons, having stakes in the three countries, also a minority stakeholder by ANC (Antofagasta Nitrate Company). The documents from the private archiv of the enterprise (now free for scientific research in London) suggest that Antony Gibbs & Sons to the development that led to the war, more reacted that acted [original: nicht direkt eingewirkt, sondern lediglich reagiert hatte ]. Also we can assume that the enterprise applied prssure to the Ch. gov. in order to protest against the tax. Sure, the enterprise had nothing against the warmongering of the ANC at the beginning of 1879. After the occupation of Tarapaca the relations of the enterprise to the Ch.Gov. deteriorated
So I expect a N E U T R A L statement of wikipedians. Or we declare explicit that there are other sources not present in the article.
-- Keysanger ( talk) 13:19, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
Marshal wrote:
If the source states that it was believe that Britain provided armament and uniforms to Chile, that is all that has to be included in the article;
Gigs wrote:
If a statement is contentious among reliable sources, we need to just report who views it one way, and who views it the other way, and refrain from asserting one or the other is reality. We can let the reader make up their own mind after presenting them the evidence in the most neutral way possible.
I prefer Gigs statement. -- Keysanger ( talk) 12:12, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
Text:
Marshal, your sentence is undocumented. Can you find enough reliable sources to support such conclusive sentence. I think, Argentina got Patagonia in consequence of the war and Brasil looked henceforth to defeated immediate neighbors. I was never engaged with the issue but I will accept only serious, reliable and numerous sources. I will prefer to delete such peacockish assertion. Do you agree?
-- Keysanger ( talk) 11:57, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
What say the others Wikipedians? to delete?
-- Keysanger ( talk) 20:24, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
Removed -- Keysanger ( talk) 18:33, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
Current text : However, the real issue is the fear of being dependent on Chile or Peru.
Can anyone give a reference for this statement?
-- Keysanger ( talk) 09:35, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
statements can and should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced. See WP:RS, WP:NRSNVNA Likeminas ( talk) 16:16, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
I think we have waited a reasonable amount of time for someone to provided sources, if they wanted to.
Since July, the statements remain unsourced, as as per WP:V and WP:NRSNVNA removing unreferenced content is not controvertial and doesn't need to be discussed. I will remove those statements accordingly. However, if someone disagrees with the removal please feel free to revert me and re-insert the statements -provided they're properly sourced-. Likeminas ( talk) 19:02, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
Most of the challenged statements have sources. Please do not remove the "challenged" statements if they are sourced. Feel free to delete information that is challenged, but is not properly sourced. Also, the "Land Campaign" section of the article is largely unsourced, but that is because I translated the section from the Spanish Wikipedia. Instead of deleting that section, I suggest that you look for sources to verify the statements. Later, we can work on summarizing that section.-- $%MarshalN20%$ ( talk) 18:54, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
Hello.
Arafael ( talk) 13:33, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
-- Keysanger ( talk) 21:20, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
P.S.: let the "References" at last.
I think you have made your point effectively Arafael. Those things you mention should be implemented into the article.-- //[*]MarshalN20[*]\\ ( talk) 23:27, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
Time is runnig out to amend incomplete references or to write references for unsupported sentences. Every unsourced controversial sentence has to be deleted.
-- Keysanger ( talk) 14:16, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
Please, take care to keep "references" at the bottom of the page -- Keysanger ( talk) 19:31, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
Greetings, I'll made several corrections in this article, one about the looting of the Peruvian National Library, quoted as an act of "confiscation", the Chilean state do not have any right to "confiscate" any cultural artifact from the Peruvian nation, that "right" is not stated or mentioned in any treaty or convention about the behavior of the nations at war from that time, therefore, it was an loot, a robbery allowed by the Chilean government against the Peruvian nation. Second, the destruction of the towns of San Juan, Miraflores, Chorrillos and Barranco was mostly executed by Chilean troops, that is a FACT proved by many sources, the Peruvian soldiers cannot destroy the towns than hours before they defended, and many of them were captured and executed in the streets by the Chilean troops, who not only attack and rape the Peruvian citizens, but also many foreigners than lived in the towns, and example of this is the slaughter of an entire Italian firefighters company in Chorrillos, accused by the Chileans to colaborate with the Peruvian troops. Wikipedia cannot be used as a place to hide or try to change this facts in the History of both nations, I´ll also saw than this article is mainly controlled by Chilean editors, and uses many Chilean sources. Not anymore. The article must be an accurated and neutral review of the facts of the War of the Pacific, not a place of diffusion of this distorted and one-side version of this war. Greetings.-- Cloudaoc ( talk) 04:13, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
I’m not here to make value judgments, and if you want to be in a productive and comfortable editing environment I suggest you refrain from doing so.
If you think or claim that something that is currently sourced is false then you need to provide another source that contradicts it or at least casts doubt on it. As you probably know by now, Wikipepdia relies heavily on verifiability, not word of mouth.
As for the usage of the word confiscate I would first point towards
WP:AVOID and second I would give the definition of the word confiscate, which is (transitive) To take possession of by force or authority; expropriate.
[50]
In any case, no you won’t leave unsourced statements in the article. Please see
WP:V and
WP:OR on why not.
In addition, please visit the
WP:3RR, you’re very close to violating that policy, thus getting blocked.
Likeminas (
talk) 16:54, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
...The soldiers pillaged the library after capturing the Peruvian capital, Lima, in 1881, during the War of the Pacific.
...Relations have been strained ever since the books - 2,500kg (5,500 lbs) of them - were stolen by Chilean soldiers occupying Peru's capital more than 120 years ago.
As war booty, Chile confiscated the contents of the Peruvian National Library in Lima
Here I bring a letter from the Director of the National Library at the time of the ocuppation, Colonel Manuel de Odriosola, who send a letter to the Chilean Government protesting by the systematic looting of the institution on his charge, the letter, dated March 10, 1881 shows how the Chilean high officers were aware of the looting and even promoted it. Here is the letter:
(in Spanish) "Carta de protesta del Bibliotecario de Lima" (PDF).
The Director of the National Library indicates than the collection at the time of the invasion includes at least 50000 books and 800 manuscripts, this numbers must be included in the article to show how little is the fraction of the books returned by the Chilean government, and how much is still in illegal possession by the Chilean nation.
You need more proofs Likeminas? Are you still accusing me of putting false and unsourced information in the Wikipedia? Are you still interested in block my Wikipedia account?. Also, the PDF document which contains the letter, quotes the page 148, Tome III of the book Narración histórica de la guerra de Chile contra el Perú y Bolivia written by Mariano Felipe Paz Soldan in 1884, narrates the next episode:
... desde ese momento principió el saqueo descarado de ese sagrado depósito, se cargaban carros, con toda clase de libros, que se llevaban a casa de los chilenos y alli, después de escoger lo que les convenia, el resto lo vendían en el mercado, al precio de seis centavos libra, para envolver especias y cosas por el estilo.
This paragraph is not only a proof of the looting, but also shows the destruction and alienation of the books of the National Library by Chilean hands, this facts must be part of any article who talks about the Chilean occupation of Lima. You need more Likeminas?, are you still believing than the word "confiscated" is enough to describe the criminal acts of the Chilean Army against the cultural patrimony of the Peruvian Nation? War booty you say? Since when the cultural capitol of a nation is part of the definition of war-booty? The letter of Odriosola describes with clarity the definition of war booty of that time, which includes only the weapons and other items used in warfare. Are you still sustaining your version of the facts Likeminas? Are you still going to blockeade my account? I'll have much more about many others "facts" of this article. This is just the beginning. Greetings.-- Cloudaoc ( talk) 19:49, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
You don’t like Wikipedia’s policies? Then, fight to change them. But as long as they are in place, you will have to follow them. Wether you like them or not.
I previously said that if there are contracting sources, then, a solution would have to be worked out to present them both.
And no, you won’t change the article according to your source and leave out the others.
Doing so, would violate
WP:NPOV,
WP:WEIGHT and
WP:CONS.
So, in view of your rather nasty and uncivilized attitude (despite numerous amicable attempts to pick up the level of the discussion) I have no interest in expanding this discussion with you. I will, however, watch the article for unilateral changes, and if appropriate report them to an administrator. Likeminas ( talk) 18:18, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
In no place of the document is the word "systematically", someone put it in the article because of unknown reasons and wrote a POV sentence. -- Keysanger ( talk) 18:10, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
As stated by Diego Barros Arana in page 100 of his oeuvre "Historia de la Guerra del Pacifico", Vol II, page 99-100 the article 45 of INSTRUCTIONS FOR THE GOVERNMENT OF ARMIES OF THE UNITED STATES IN THE FIELD, aka Lieber Code, Prepared by Francis Lieber, promulgated as General Orders No. 100 by President Lincoln, 24 April 1863 and used by Chile as Law of War (See Diego Barros Arana "Historia de la Guerra del Pacifico", Vol I, page 115) defined that:
Of course, today 2009, this law is right strange for us, but was used in the Civil war of the United States, 1864, and the Lieber code was promulgated as law of war by the government of President Pinto in 1879. That has to be mentionated in this context. Many readers ignore that the law of war is relatively new (since ca. 1850) and has impoved over the intervening years.
-- Keysanger ( talk) 18:48, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
I wrote following contribution to the article, but someone deleted it because of unknown reasons:
At that time there was no binding international law between both countries about this issue. The Chilean government under President Aníbal Pinto Garmendia let print a book "El derecho de la guerra según los últimos progresos de la civilización" with the following laws:
and intructed [30] the officers of the army and the navy to comply with.
Because of the Peruvians claims about the books, the paragraph has to be added to the text. Of course also the Peruvian and Bolivian law of war should be added.
-- Keysanger ( talk) 19:01, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
As war booty, Chile ‘plundered’ the contents of the National Library of Peru
Hi Likeminas, please let me now the references (title, author, year of edition, page, and relevant text) for your proposal.
I read the given reference Enc. Brit [100], but couldn't find such data.
Please use this thread to discuss the books issue.
-- Keysanger ( talk) 15:42, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
copy and paste or not, we NEED reliable references for:
I deleted the given reference to the Enc Brit because it was not verificable. EB was first published between 1768 and 1771 and since in different versions and with thousand of thousand of pages and languages.
The references have to contain name of the book (url), author, year of edition, page nr and relevant text. I don't refuse to write about the library of lima, of course there is the documented restitution of the books, but we want to finish the habit to write "from heart". We write a encyclopaedia, not a polemic pamphlet.
Another point to resolve is the WP:Due weight. It is ridiculous that "the Chilean army initiated a series of military maneuvers in the Peruvian provinces of Tarapacá, Tacna, and Arica. The battles of Pisagua, Tacna, and Arica, resulted in Chilean victories that gave Chile control over the Atacama desert" is all about the land campaign in the main article and the steal of books fill a full paragraph. This is valid also for the issue 35 (destruction of Chorrillos). Both events are to be dealt in proportion of their importance in the war and to the lenght of the article.
In order to lessen the waste of time (discussions about reliability of the source, page nr, relevant text, relation with the topic, etc.), I beg you to deliver good reliable and accesible references, with all data (I repeat: name of the book and/or url, author, year of edition, page number and relevant text). Be sure that your reference absolutly supports the sentence you are propousing and it isn't a vage notice about an similar or near event but not the event self.
It seems pedantic, but it is necessary to impede POV and a bad documented article.
-- Keysanger ( talk) 17:21, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
The sources are very important, but not all the sources are adequate to be used as reference for a neutral point-of-view article, another example of this is the claim than was the Peruvian troops, not the Chilean ones, which destroyed the towns outside Lima. This is one of the most aberrant lines in the present article, because is not only illogical, but also false. This is a facsimil-copy of the last Peruvian newspaper published in Lima one day after the battle of Chorrillos, in January 14, 1881, is part of the collections of documents published in Tome V of the book "Guerra del Pacifico - Recopilacion completa de todos los documentos oficiales, correspondencias i demas publicaciones referentes a la guerra" published in Valparaiso in 1888 by Pascual Ahumada Romero, who narrates the destruction of the towns by the Chilean troops without any significative attemp of his officers to stop it:
Last newspaper published in Lima - January 14, 1881
I'm sure Likeminas than you can read in spanish as well than me, therefore, you can't deny the relevance and importance of this source, I`ll hope than you made the necessary corrections to improve this article with this new evidence. Greetings.-- Cloudaoc ( talk) 20:12, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
If by bias you mean, having a Chilean POV, then that’s OK.
Wikipedia doesn’t require neutrality from the source, but instead from its editors and how they present the material in the article. Please read
WP:NPOV.
If you look at the references currently listed in the article, we have accounts from Peru, Bolivia and Chile. Obviously, not all will have the same analysis and conclusion of a historical event.
In other words, if there are opposing views to a matter, Wikipedia’s neutrality policy requires that we present accordingly those views. Having said, that,
Some sources may be considered reliable for statements as to their author's opinion, but not for statements of fact. A prime example of this are Op-ed columns that are published in mainstream newspapers. When discussing what is said in such sources, it is important to directly attribute the material to its author, and to do so in the main text of the Wikipedia article so readers know that we are discussing someone's opinion.
Please inform yourself with how
Wikipedia works, since these policies are(at least) a pre-requirement to any content dispute or debate.
And also, keep it
cool. I believe I haven’t adopted an aggressive tone towards you. So please, reciprocate.
It will be nicer for all of us.
Likeminas (
talk) 15:49, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
Hi Marshal, please let me now the relevant text that you think support the sentence. -- Keysanger ( talk) 15:44, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
"Se recibieron noticias del Coronel Iglesias i de otras fuentes acerca de las atrocidades cometidas por el Ejercito Chileno en Chorrilos
"La verdadera razon para destruir la propiedad del reclamante i otras propiedades en Chorrillos, parece exponerlas el propio comandante del Ejercito Chileno, cuando en su informe oficial dice lo siguiente:"
"..pues la batalla de Miraflores, es una prueba mas de que si hubiera tratado de dominarlas, en Chorrillos por parte de los oficiales del Ejercito Chileno, no hubiera ocurrido la destruccion de este pueblo junto con una..."
To your question can you affirm than the United States and Chilean Claims Commission is lyng in his report? my answer is YES, the claimer was interestad to demostrate that the Chilean Army was guilty in order to obtain some kind of compensation (dollars) from the Chilean government. We know it from the es:Caso Baltimore that the USA wasn't stingy if they saw (see) challenged his hegemony. But that is my opinion and it isn't important in this question. Relevant is what say the historians. -- Keysanger ( talk) 18:46, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
Hello,
You wrote your own compatriots. I please you to let my intim sphere out of Wikipedia. I don't want to hear more about my person from people that don't know me. I'm not on intimate terms with you. That are the rules of Wikipedia. If you are looking for friends or foes, go to hell. Thank you.
About your "Case Chile-USA"
page 143: deals with "atrocities" What does it means that? Fire, mass executions, looting, rapes? What do you want to write there?. Do you have more reliable sources for?
page 163: That is not an statement that supports "Chileans did the destruction". Please read again. In the first sentence it is unknown who destroyed the property. The phrase announced only the reasons, but, because of unknown reasons, the relevant text is cut there.
page 165: this sentence only states that the Chilean officers didn't stop the destruction but not who did it.
It is hard to demostrate events about we heard at home but when we go out of the box no one knows about it. That are Myths and Legends. You have presented two documents (the newspaper and the case Chile-USA) and in my honest opinion none of them meet the simplest demands of Wikipedia. I was yesterday in the university library thumbing through the books and I found no mention of the destruction of Chorrillos as you presented it. It doesn't mean that there wasn't at all, but it says a lot about the WP:Due weight of the events.
We do remember that after the battle of Chorrillos the Peruvian state entered in a process of disintegration and many social hardships, political and economical disparities fueled tensions in the Peruvian population against particular ethnic groups. Blacks, Chinese, Indians, Meztizos and Europeans were this days living out of the rule of law. It is very easy for the true wrongdoers to claim "the Mapochos did it".
-- Keysanger ( talk) 22:44, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
current text:
After the Chilean invasion of Antofagasta, Hilarión Daza made a presidential decree on March 1, 1879, which demanded the expulsion of Chileans, the nationalizing of Chilean private property and prohibited trade and communications with Chile "as long as the war lasts".[21] Due to its aggressiveness the Chilean government understood the decree as a declaration of war.[22][23] However, although both nations had already taken aggressive actions, in reality no war had yet been formally declared from either side of the conflict.[24][25]
For the non-declaration of war there are ONE reference:
"Historia del Perú" by Atilio Sivirichi, 1932, page 193:
Following given sources say nothing about the non-declaration of war:
"Narracion historica de la Guerra del Pacifico" by Mariano Paz Soldan, page 81:
"Historia ecónomica de Bolivia," Band 2 by Luis Peñaloza Cordero says nothing about
Mesa redonda sobre el problema del litoral boliviano - page 121 by Alcira Cardona Torrico - 1966 - 325 pages
"Historia financiera de Bolivia" page 405 by Casto Rojas - 1916 - 421 pages
"Guerra del Pacífico: los tribunales arbitrales, 1882-1888" by Alejandro Soto Cárdenas
"De la fundación a la Guerra del Salitre" by Juan Pereira Fiorilo
For the declaration of war are:
"Documentary History of the Tacna-Arica dispute, University of Iowa studies in the social sciences, Vol. 8", by William Jefferson Dennis, here, page 69:
(From the editorial: William Jefferson Dennis, the author of this study and an instructor in the State University of Iowa, was resident of Peru from 1917 to 1922 and also visited Chile and Bolivia, this qualification, it is hoped, have enabled him to preserve something of the atmosphere of the controverse without imparing the judicial and impartial spirit of its record.)
Andean Tragedy, William F. Sater, page 39 and page 42:
About William F. Sater : There is no question that Professor Sater is the foremost authority on the War of the Pacific in the English language and probably in any language. here
"Latin America's Wars: The age of the caudillo, 1791-1899" By Robert L. Scheina, page 376.
"Wars and Peace Treaties, 1816-1991", By Erik Goldstein, page 182:
"The history of Chile" By John Lawrence Rector, page 100:
"The geopolitics of security in the Americas: hemispheric denial from Monroe ..." by Martin Sicker here
"A history of Chile" - Page 326, by Luis Galdames, Isaac Joslin Cox - History - 1941 - 565 pages
"Chile and the War of the Pacific" - Page 9 by William F. Sater - History - 1986 - 343 pages
"The Bolivia-Chile-Peru dispute in the Atacama Desert" by Ronald Bruce St. John, Clive H. Schofield here
The consuting was here
The last opinions of the invited were:
I see that the opinion of the invited is We have established that multiple reliable sources say that Bolivia declared war. There are no reasons to change the majority of the documents and insert a "due to agressiveness".
-- Keysanger ( talk) 10:24, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
It is noteworthy that the article lacks a structure that helps the reader to understand the events, the length of time, the places and the importance of the facts.
I will present you a ideal table of contents (TOC) containing all the issues the article deals with, its herarchie and position in the time. Most of the issues are already in the text. Feel free to give your opinion to the tabel.
The War of the Pacific Background
Boundary disputes in South America
Economic interests: Nitrate/Economy
Rivalry Chile/Peru
Treaties
1866 1873 1874 Crisis
The Ten Cents tax
Peruvian Mediation
Occupation of Antofagasta
The War
Naval campaign
Land campaign in Antofagasta and Tarapaca
Invasion of Tacna and Arica
Lynch's Expedition
Battle of Chorrillos and Miraflores
Occupation of Lima
Campaign of La Sierra
Political issues during the war
Collapse of Daza in Bolivia
Collapse of Prado in Peru
Election of Domingo Santa María in Chile
Lackawamma Conference
Government of Montero in Peru
Government of Iglesias in Peru
Peace
Peace treaty with Peru
Peace treaty with Bolivia
Strategy and technology
International law and war delicts
World perspectives
America
Europe
Aftermath
Socioeconomic and territorial consequences
Bolivia
Chile
Peru
Bibliography
See also
References
External links
-- Keysanger ( talk) 17:52, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
We have experienced that the we can find in internet (google) almost every opinion about the war. I won't repeat what for sources are/have been used in the article until now. The War of the Pacific is a controversial article but there are enough serious studies about the war.
In order to get the article out of a mess, we must use ONLY reliable sources.
I recommend William F. Sater "Andean Tragedy" and Bruce W. Farcau "The Ten Cents War" as a good documented works about the war. Sater's book has 442 pages well researched and well organized that constitutes the best one volume account of this tragic war. inclusive 40 pages for notes and 12 pages for bibliography. There is no question that Professor Sater is the foremost authority on the War of the Pacific in the English language and probably in any language.
I think, that any issue or opinion that doesn't appear in this two works arouse suspicion or doesn't merit to be mentioned in Wikipedia.
-- Keysanger ( talk) 12:51, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
As in the Falklands War and WW2 the name of the presidents are to be written under "commanders" because they are the actually military commanders during the war. -- Keysanger ( talk) 11:35, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
I deleted some absurd references like:
reference 21 linked to the (wikisource) Tratado de Limites Ch-B of 1874. That is non-sense because the treaty can be interpreted in different ways. Please be more careful to give refernces. -- Keysanger ( talk) 11:50, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
I must admit I grew tired of the endless discussion and I didn't feel like talking to a wall on an article where progress -let alone collaborative building- was nearly impossible, and I decided it was more productive for me to move on and work on other areas of Wikipedia. I see others felt the same way and also left.
Nonetheless, I won't allow that the information that was diligently collected (including vast amounts of references) that were in the article be sent to oblivion.
Eventually, I will come back to this article, although I don't know when. Perhaps, when the time is right and when editors are willing to cooperate with each other and all the silly nationalisms revolving this subject are left outside of Wikipedia, as it should be. See you all soon. Likeminas ( talk) 18:24, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
Please explain all your claims as precise and accurate as possible and refrain of personal attacks. Thank you, -- Keysanger ( talk) 13:00, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
Unfortunately, your good will, which I have to assume, isn't enough to improve the article. In order to redound to the article "War of the Pacific" you should have read/understand about the war, which I haven't to assume, and I can ask for reliable references. During the discussions about the issues you were unable to contribute with reliable sources (v.g. "Heavy british investment leads") or simply you abandoned (v.g. Gigs's Cabal Mediation). And this situation will remain unchanged also when you call for help more people: Wikipedia isn't a democracy.
Regarding your lapses, if you can only think of people who disagree with in terms of unflattering political stereotypes that is merely a sad reflection upon your own narrow-mindedness. -- Keysanger ( talk) 15:10, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
You continue to assume that Bolivia never declared the war on Chile and try to impose the non sense to other wikipedians. Only for the information of the newbies I write here the rerefernces given in the article:
Because the capital of Bolivia, La Paz, lacked a telegraph connexion abroad the there are different data for declaration of war depending of the place (i.e. the used means of transportation carriage, ship, telegraph abroad) where the new was received. There are two documents about and William F. Sater in "Andean Tragedy", page 28 states:
See also :
You can find both documents here:
So, please stopt deleteing or changing referenced and uncontested information.
-- Keysanger ( talk) 07:22, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
"All of the sources you provide have an erroneous founding for their statement. They hold no knowledge on the Bolivian method of declaring war. They base their interpretation from the Chilean POV; when they should refer to the official Bolivian POV as it is dealing with that particular nation more-so than with Chile. This is one of the cases in which the majority is incorrect. That being said, this article is still a biased piece of worthlesness; it has been destroyed and twisted to fit a specific biased POV. I continue to warn all readers to look at this article and doubt many of the things it presents."
— http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Talk%3AWar_of_the_Pacific&diff=316299677&oldid=316267283 , 13:09, 26 September 2009 , MarshalN20 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Thank you MarshalN20 for freeing us from the darkness, Now we know the ligth of your words, your mind is iluminating our way to the future, please continue your work in other articles, we already free. you are Wikipedia's Liberator!!!, . -- Keysanger ( talk) 16:49, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
I remember to all interested wikipedians that there is the posibility of a "Request of Comment" for every article. If someone of you think that the article lacks neutrality (or any other desired quality), s/he should feel free to make such request. Of course, knowing that my english skills are not perfect, I put the Copy-Edit tag at the beginning of the page. Perhaps some detractor should begins there.
-- Keysanger ( talk) 07:30, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
The "contribution" [51] is another example for contributions of the editor: the relevant text of the reference was deleted and replaced through the opinion of the editor. The editor neither add references for the new text (his/her opinion) nor adapted the text in order to include new references. The only effect of the change, I must assume good faith of the editor, was to make the old text illegible.
By the way, the paragraph being cuestioned was not written by me, I believe I only added the {{Facts}}-tag somewhere down the road. -- Keysanger ( talk) 12:32, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
This page 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. |