This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 5 | ← | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | → | Archive 15 |
Why they are controversial? we will explain it in this page, one by one. It will takes time but an open debate is necesary to get a neutral article.
Acording to the chilean ministry of foreign affairs in april 1879 Chile had an army of 7.000 mens and 13.000 comblains rifles...
. Rasdar2 ( talk) 16:23, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
I was asked to comment on the RFC as a neutral commentator by Keysanger to give full disclosure. I don't claim my comments are the result of an in depth examination of the issue and I'm not an expert on the history; though I do have some familiarity. Also I haven't worked or collaborated with Keysanger.
Coming from a neutral perspective there are partisan texts on both sides. Hence, it is difficult to produce a neutral text since both sides can produce a source to support their issue. I would suggest that rather sticking to sources from a particular side, you might consider using sources from a neutral 3rd party or both sides. It is also very easy to fall into the trap of giving undue prominence to certain material. You might also explore trying to find neutral language that doesn't favour either side - not an easy prospect I acknowledge. You also need to stop trying on both sides to paint the other as "wrong".
There are ownership issues on both sides as well; though I note primarily accusations are bandied at one particular party. Being honest there appears to be a group of editors ranged against one, who is an established contributor. The dispute over content is also needlessly being personalised by both sides. There is no right version. I'm going to suggest that you consider the mediation cabal as a means of establishing a collaborative working relationship.
My 2c worth, you may take it as you find it. I can try and act as a neutral referee if you like. I do have some Spanish but I'll freely admit its not the greatest. Justin talk 14:55, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
UNINDENT
If everyone is happy for me to act as neutral referee I'm happy to help. Could I start by asking if there is agreement. Then I would suggest that everyone lists the content issues with the article. Please focus on the content rather than individuals and keep the comments focused on content. OK? Justin talk 21:01, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
OK the way I propose that the dispute is to be resolved is to look for a neutral third party source that is acceptable to both sides. Ideally a source that discusses the origins of the war. Primarily I suggest we rely on secondary sources of this nature, I agree that we should not disregard primary sources, particularly for example where we require a citation for a particular aspect of the article. However, for the main part of the article we should look to secondary sources.
The reason I suggest this, is that many primary sources are written from the partisan view point of the author. For example a Chilean may see the Bolivian imposition of taxes as illegal, whereas the Bolivian side will see that fundamentally differently. That is a mere example, nothing more.
If the content disputes were resolved in es.wikipedia, then I agree we should look at that article. For now I think we should first agree an article structure.
Is that an acceptable proposal? Justin talk 15:37, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
I would support using for the most contentious issues (e.g. the tax, war declaration, and third countries involvement) secondary sources to begin with. I would also support the use of primary sources, as long as the proposed (or contested) text is discussed here first.
The other proposal of translating the Spanish Version can be also a viable and temporary solution, but perhaps not the ideal one. For one, sources written in English should be preferred in the English Wikipedia as they're easier to be verified by the non-Spanish reader. In case there’s not an English source, a translation of a Spanish version could be used. But it would have to be done with a lot of care and ideally peer-reviewed to avoid any misinterpretation.
I think there are good English sources that can be used to start off.
These secondary sources are all written in a scholarly manner, comply well with
WP:RSUE,
WP:RS and the authors are not Chilean, Peruvian or Bolivian, so concerns of nationalistic bias can hardly be pin-pointed to them.
Finally, I would agree with somebody’s proposal of not making this discussion about a particular user. It's a moot point by now and it doesn’t really help to move things forward, but instead creates a non-friendly and un-collaborative environment. Regards,
Likeminas (
talk) 16:16, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
PS: I've Sandboxed an old version of this article in case some text and sources can be used.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Likeminas/Sandbox
Likeminas (
talk) 16:49, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
Well, before I go back into my status of mere viewer, I'd like to point out that there is still a deep issue concerning the citation standards in this article. I think that User:Fifelfoo did an excellent job in his RfC in order to help improve this article's citation structure; but User:Keysanger went into a mass deletion of sources and completely changed things to a kind of citation format that is really, at least by my standards, unacceptable. He even tried to trick Fifelfoo by telling him that he had done as he recommended, but the truth is still plainly there: The citation format in this article is terrible. Here are some recommendation points I'd like to provide:
It really is bound to help out the article. I think one of the key problems is that Keysanger's earlier method was to quote directly the source inside the citation, and even still some little side-comments (explanations) of the source can be seen. These things are not necessary to be shown in the citation. One of the first rules of Wikipedia is to assume Good Faith, and thus it must be taken into good faith that the sources being listed mention the material being posted. If it is verified that a user has been using sources inappropiately (lying about their content), then that user should be inmediately reported. Next, providing explanations of the sources is really unecessary original research (nobody really cares about anybody else's opinion on the source; that's up for the reader to see).-- MarshalN20 | Talk 23:55, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
Greetings, I was checking the article and this paragraph:
After the battle there were fires and sackings in the towns of Chorrillos and Barranco, but over the wrongdoers there are one-sided information. Chilean authors incriminate demoralized Peruvian soldiers but Peruvian authors accuse drunken Chilean soldiers of the damages and crimes. Both versions must not be contradictory.
Is mainly sustained by the book of Sergio Villalobos, CHILE Y PERÚ, LA HISTORIA QUE NOS UNE Y NOS SEPARA 1535-1883, but this book was heavily questionated even by the own Chileans, for its excessive nationalism and contempt against Peru and Bolivia, an example is this review:
CHILE Y PERÚ, LA HISTORIA QUE NOS UNE Y NOS SEPARA 1535-1883, de Sergio Villalobos - Una sonrisa
Therefore, this source is not suitable to be an useful secondary source for this article, and the argument which blames Peruvian soldiers from part of the destruction of San Juan and Miraflores is based mainly on speculations of some Chilean authors, and many primary sources indicates than was the Chilean soldiers, nor the Peruvian ones, who commit the crimes involved in the destruction of the Limean towns. My sustain for this issue can be found in the archives of this talk page:
[ Issue #35 About the destruction of San Juan and Miraflores]
Keysanger replys (without any sustain) than the Peruvian govermnent control over the towns cease to exist after the battle and because of that, the Peruvian soldiers lost control and destroys the towns who few hours before protect with their own lives. I'll proceed to rewrite this section and the entire article related to the occupation of Lima. Greetings -- Cloudaoc ( talk) 16:44, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
wich is your source Keysenger? if you dont add one i will delete that sentence
Rasdar2 (
talk) 17:25, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
==>What exactly disqualifies Villalobos as a reliable source? As far as I know, the man is a professor at the University of Chile, one of the most prominent scholars of contemporary Chilean historiography and winner of the national history prize. [1] I won’t even go into debating the “reviews” or “critiques” that certain websites give him. I’ve seen good and bad “reviews” of that book. In any case, website reviews are not an academic measurementm of reliability.
I’m also aware that historical accounts from Peru, Bolivia and Chile don’t necessarily agree with each other and for that reason not all will have the same analysis and conclusion of an event.
I would agree on improving the statement (“...demoralized Peruvian soldiers destroyed cities...”) as it is not very accurate. I did read the book and Villalobos doesn’t claim Peruvians destroyed cities, he says that under the chaos of the initial Lima campaign, soldiers of the Peruvian army, saw an opportunity to also take part in the sacking of valuable objects.
(See also: : Charles de Varigny, "La Guerra del Pacifico", Imprenta Cervantes, Moneda 1170, Santiago de Chile, 1922, page XVIII rendía incondicionalmente. La soldadesca [peruana] desmoralizada y no desarmada saqueaba la ciudad en la noche del 16, el incendio la alumbraba siniestramente y el espanto reinaba en toda ella.
I know I posted this before, but please, read Wikipedia’s guideline on reliable sources regarding History: On many topics, there are different interpretive schools which use the same documents and facts but use different frameworks and come to different conclusions. So having contradictory accounts of a historical event, especially a war, is not very unusual. WP:NPOV in this cases requires, we present them all in an impartial way.
I proposed a re-writing of that paragraph during a previous discussion, so let me re-post it to see if we can reach a consensus with that one, or work it out from there.
However, In the view of Chilean historian Sergio Villalobos some of the looting was also carried out by Peruvians who saw under the chaos of the occupation an opportunity to acquire valuable objects. On the other hand, the Peruvian historiography has no such accounts and reaffirms that the looting was done solely by Chilean forces.
Let’s see what others say about this. Does it improve it? If not, what and how it can be improved? Likeminas ( talk) 15:08, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
In Chorrillos, after the battle, were civilians, and wounded soldiers defending the town. Upon entering the Chilean soldiers were fighting house to house with the Peruvians, burning homes to get them out. Among the houses were vineyards, that Chilean soldiers pillaged drunk, so all control was lost. There were scuffles and assassinations among Chileans themselves fighting for food and liquor. All this led to the looting, killings of peruvian civilians. In the city of Lima were peruvian soldiers, with them blacks, mulatto and bandits, who commited murders and looting mainly against Chinese people and stores. These excesses were due to the Chinese coolies served as porters on the Chilean army, also use the absence of order in the city. Attacks also took place against European merchants because they refused to accept Peruvians money.
Here's more on the Looting:
Looting had already begun in parts of the capital on the night of the 15th, but rioting and burning spread throughout the city on the 16th and well into the night. The municipal police had been conscripted into the army and were long gone, and any army troops still in uniform were streaming into the mountains to the east to carry on the war. It was not until the morning of the 17th of January that Rufino Torrico, the mayor of Lima, was able to appeal to the foreign diplomatic community to form an “urban guard” of their own nationals, mostly sailors and marines from the warships off Callao, to patrol the city and impose some kind of order, disarming deserters and rioters, killing about two hundred of them in Lima and another 150 in Callao in the process. The first Chilean troops entered the city at 1700 hours that day (17th of January)
What does this mean?
1)My first proposal was perhaps too harsh on the Chilean atrocities and too lenient on the Peruvian ones.
2)Bruce W. Farcau is not Chilean, so not only the Chilean the historiography accounts for riots, looting and destruction of Lima.
3)Peruvians started rioting and looting at least 2 days before the first Chilean troops entered Lima.
4)The slaughtering of these people (whether civilians or not) began before the Chilean army entered Lima.
I suggest we add this information into the article as well. Likeminas ( talk) 00:34, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
I have not much interest in circular debating, so here's another proposal that is supported by a secondary sources;
Chaos already reined in Lima before the arrival of the first Chilean troops. Looting had already begun in parts of the capital on the night of the 15th, but rioting and burning spread throughout the city on the 16th and well into the night. It was not until the morning of the 17th of January that Rufino Torrico, the mayor of Lima, was able to control the situation by appealing to the foreign diplomats to lend troops from foreign warships to patrol the city and impose some kind of order, disarming deserters and rioters, and in the process killing about two hundred of them in Lima and another 150 in Callao. It was during that same day at around 17:00 that Chilean troops entered Lima. Upon entering the city, Chilean soldiers were fighting house to house with the Peruvians, in some instances burning homes to get them out. Among the houses were vineyards, which Chilean soldiers pillaged. There were drunken scuffles and assassinations among Chileans themselves fighting for food and liquor. All this led to the looting, and killings of Peruvian civilians.
I wish others would give their opinions also, because achieving consensus in this article seem like a never-ending story. Likeminas ( talk) 14:28, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
The riots starts in Lima before...
In Chorrillos, after the battle, Chilean soldiers were fighting house to house with the Peruvians, in some instances burning homes to get them out. Among the houses were vineyards, which Chilean soldiers pillaged. There were drunken scuffles and assassinations among Chileans themselves fighting for food and liquor. All this led to the looting, and killings of Peruvian civilians. In Lima were peruvian soldiers dissolved, with them bandits, who commited murders and looting mainly against Chinese people, then Rufino Torrico, the mayor of Lima, control the situation by appealing to the foreign diplomats to lend troops from foreign warships to patrol the city and impose some kind of order, disarming soldiers and rioters
Arafael ( talk) 14:45, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
An explanation, Mollendo, Chorrillos, Barranco and Miraflores were sacked and burned by chilean dispersed soldiers(acording to some chileans authors in Chorrillos peruvians desmoralized soldiers took part too), Lima art and literaty treasures were sacked by orders of chilean occupation authorities(see Scheina's book page 388), it was an organizaded pillage very diferent from the others, after the battle of miraflores some peruvian soldiers and bandits began to sack and kill chinesse people (called colies) and their stores, the foreign urban guard restore the order after the entrance of chilean troops. The only controversial point is Chorrillos. There wasnt "massive peruvian raids" as keysenger said. Rasdar2 ( talk) 17:35, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
Keysenger quotes on Charles de Varigny only refers to Lima not to Chorrillos, Barranco and Miraflores as he said in the article. Rasdar2 ( talk) 18:07, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
I'm going to change these sentence to "as direct consequence of war several peruvian towns were bombed, sacked and destroyed" Rasdar2 ( talk) 16:28, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
I'm just added this section, using secondary sources only, although in my opinion them can be support by "primary sources". If someome (maybe you Keysanger) dont agree with something of the section, just send me a message and i will be glad to discuis and debate it. Greetings Rasdar2 ( talk) 16:56, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
As many of you know, the consequences of the War of the Pacific are really more of a "touchy" (delicate) subject than the war itself. Much of the content disputes of the article actually have its roots from the consequences of the war, rather than from the war itself. Now, I say this because I doubt that any of you participated in the War of the Pacific; but I'm sure that many of the contributors have been affected by the consequences of the war. I recommend to all of you that when dealing with this particular "Consequences of the War" section to do it with the best of intentions at heart and to only present factual information from truly reliable sourced material. In an earlier version of the article, I recall that it mentioned that "Peru and Bolivia had deep scars" left as a result of the war, but the truth of the matter is that all nations got deep consequences out of it. So, please avoid writing that section with any particular intention to insult or favor any of the nations; and those who may feel insulted by the material in there please remember to keep WP:GF (good faith) in mind. If any of you want to challenge the material there, challenge it with better sources and not by deleting sourced material.-- MarshalN20 | Talk 02:40, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
On the section of the "aftermath" of Peru, there is a source used from the University for Peace. In the article, the statement is directly attributed to the UoP, but at the bottom of the source there is this disclaimer from the UoP (You have to scroll down to the bottom of the web and look at the letters in small print, which IMO is quite comical since it reminds me of those cartoons where the small print is always secret and barely anybody can see due to its bad meaning): "Please note that all opinions expressed in the Peace and Conflict Monitor are those of the author only and do not represent the official position of the University for Peace."
Therefore, based on that, the statement from the source cannot be attributed to the University for Peace. Rather, its author is a certain person named "Rafael Velasquez." At the bottom of the reference there is also an informal note on Velasquez, which reads: "Rafael holds a MA in International Peace Studies from the United Nations University for Peace. He currently works in the area of communication for an International Organization and as consultant in the area of African Conflict Management. He may be reached at rvelasquez@alumni.upeace.org." The section should be edited appropiately based on these things. Best regards.-- MarshalN20 | Talk 17:39, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
should make it clear that this is an statement of opinion. Likeminas ( talk) 20:12, 2 November 2009 (UTC)Rafael Velasquez, a contributor for the University for Peace, writes......
I would like to propose the following for an introduction:
The War of the Pacific ( Spanish: Guerra del Pacífico) was a South American conflict that took place from 1879-1884 in which the forces of Chile fought against a defensive alliance 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 exact start of the war is a matter of dispute among historians, with some attributing the Bolivian presidential decree of Hilarion Daza as a declaration of war and others attributing Chile as the first nation to officially declare war. Although the conflict was originally a dispute between Chile and Bolivia over a 10 cents tax on the Antofagasta Nitrate & Railway Company, Peru got first involved in the matter as a mediator and, as a result of the Chilean invasion of the Bolivian port city of Antofagasta, Bolivia called upon a secret defensive alliance, which some historians consider offensive and aimed at Chile, that binded Peru to Bolivia in the case of foreign invasion of either one of the nation's territories.
The resulting five year war took place over a variety of terrain, beginning in the Atacama Desert of Bolivia and, later, as the Chilean forces advanced further north, into the deserts and mountainous regions of Peru. The first battle of the war, the Battle of Topáter, in which Chilean troops faced a defending force of Bolivian soldiers and civilians, took place before any declaration of war had been made by either side. However, once war had been declared, for most of the first year there was a focus on the Naval Campaign due to the strategic advantage of holding control of the seas in order to provide naval assistance to the land forces which would be having to battle in the Atacama desert, the world's driest desert. Even though the Peruvian Navy met with initial success, the naval campaign was eventually won by the Chilean Navy upon the capture of the Peruvian flagship monitor Huáscar and the death of Peru's prominent admiral Miguel Grau, known by all sides of the conflict as the "Knight of the Seas" due to his chivalry. Afterwards, the Land Campaign would result in a string of victories for the Chilean Army over the badly equipped and poorly trained troops of the Bolivian and Peruvian armies, which resulted in the complete defeat of Bolivia in the Battle of Tacna of May 26, 1880, and the annihilation of the Peruvian regular army after the Battle of Arica in June 7 of the same year. The land campaign reached its climax in 1881, with the Chilean occupation of Lima.
The remaining three years of the conflict turned into a guerrilla war between a union of what was left of the Peruvian army and some irregular troops under the command of General Andrés Avelino Cáceres, and the military forces of Chile with their base in Lima under the command of Admiral Patricio Lynch. The ensuing conflict would be known as the Campaign of the 'Breña (or Sierra, both which make reference to the Andes's rough terrain), and would be fairly successful as a resistance movement but inneffective in changing the course of the war. Eventually, after the defeat of Cáceres in the Battle of Huamachuco, Chile and Peru managed to reach a diplomatic solution on October 20, 1883, with the signing of the Treaty of Ancon (The treaty became effective in 1884). Bolivia and Chile would eventually also sign a separate peace treaty in 1884.
The conclusion of the conflict left deep scars on all sides involved, with much modern political conflict among these neighboring nations generally referring back to this war. Ultimately, the peace treaty led to the Chilean acquisition of the Peruvian territories of department of Tarapaca and province of Arica, as well as the disputed Bolivian department of Litoral, leaving Bolivia as a landlocked country.
So, what do you think?
I would have liked to expand a bit on the "plebsicite" of Arica and Tacna (which is itself quite a controversial topic), but did not mention it in order to prevent conflicts among editors.
Also, I have a certain lack of knowledge in regards to the prominent Chilean commanders during the war (only Lynch is well-known to me). I thought about mentioning Arturo Prat somehow, but decided against it since his participation in the war is really quite minimal and his death is really, well, kind of irrelevant for a summary (though he died in a heroic way, I think everyone here has to admit that his death was really silly). Similarly, I excluded the mention of Francisco Bolognesi (Bolognesi, Grau, and Caceres are Peru's best known commanders in the war; at least for Peruvians) because it was just as irrelevant and silly (though heroic as well; I wouldn't jump into an enemy ship like Prat, and I wouldn't try to take a stand if I know I'm going to get massacred like Bolognesi...but that's mainly because I consider those decisions irrational and stupid, but heroic nonetheless) as that of Prat. So, if anybody is willing to add perhaps the prominent commander of Chile that led the land campaign of the Atacama, that would be nice.
Like I've said before, I'm not trying to favor any particular side (or, at least that's not my intention) in the summary. I think it's definately an improvement from what is currently in the article, but just as in all Wiki articles it is subject to error and further improvement. Best regards.-- MarshalN20 | Talk 19:19, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
The article lists the dates as 1879-1884. But my understanding is that the war ended in October 1883 with the signing of the treaty. (that's also the date in the Wikipedia Spanish entry on the war) 2.38.107.109 ( talk) 17:26, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
Although some parts of the current andean territory of Argentina were nominally Bolivian before the war, the maps on the infobox and the main body of the text go far beyond that, incluiding vast parts of Argentine territory that were not Bolivian, such as the cities of Jujuy and Salta and their territories of influence. BTW, some of these were well-defined borders after Tarija chose to be part of Bolivia. I think these maps have to be mended. Salut, -- IANVS ( talk) 21:30, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
No mention of France's observation mission? How about of this figure involved: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abel-Nicolas_Bergasse_Dupetit_Thouars. His role is understood in Peru to have prevented excesses by the Chilean army after besting Peru's defenders and moving into Lima. Just curious. Rafajs77 ( talk) 05:41, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
International intervention in the War of the Pacific is present but subtle. It was attempted (on my part) to include many of these international views on the conflict, but other users used it to include their original research; this is why much of this information no longer appears on the article.-- MarshalN20 | Talk 22:12, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
Despite an agreement Talk:War of the Pacific/Archive 7#Mediation of defensive/offensive issue. the current article [10] insists to presume a defensive alliance: 'The forces of Chile fought a defensive alliance of Bolivia and Peru.. That is a clear violation of the NPOV of the Wikipedia rules. -- Keysanger ( what?) 10:48, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
Everyone, just take a minute to think before anything gets out of hand.
There is nothing wrong about either of these things, nothing "extremely nationalistic" (which is really an exaggeration and quite an aggressive title for this section). Best of wishes.-- MarshalN20 | Talk 21:58, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
I posted an arbitration request against user MarshalN20 because of his edits in the article. Best regrads, -- Keysanger ( what?) 15:11, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
I have noticed this discussion, and thought of some things about it.
First of all, the context. Bolivia and Peru had wrote a treaty of mutual defense, that's a fact. With "defense" understood in its technical meaning: if a third country would declare war to any of the countries in the treaty, the others would join against it. There are more facts, such as that the treaty was secret, that Chile was not invited to join it (Argentina was, but did not join it). To say that this means that the treaty was actually for Bolivia and Chile to unite against Chile is an opinion; but to say that is opinion was held by most Chileans and encouraged the hostilities in Chile is a fact (as it is an opinion attributed to those holding it). More or less, that's the context, the way things took place. The NPOV is broken if we try to settle who was fighting the " Just War". In any case, let's remember that the aggresor is not who declares war first, but who begins the hostilities first, and military hostilities may begin without a declaration of war (and even worse, war may be "declared" when it's already taking place).
Second, there's a point we should consider about some of the sources cited earlier: many authors say things in "summary style", depending on the scope of the book (a book specifically about the War of the Pacific is a better source than a book about latin american history as a whole). An author that considers the twisted scenario, checks the information, and concludes "the aggresor was X because..." (whenever X is Chile, Peru or Bolivia) is one thing, an author making a trivial mention about the beginng of the war is another. We should dismiss authors making trivial passing-by mentions, and work with those who acknowledge the existence of this dispute and explains their reasons for endorsing one or other side. Or, better yet, an authors that acknowledges the dispute and stands aside it, explaining something like "Chilean authors X and Y say (A), Peruvian author Z says (B), and Bolivian author XY considers (C)". Consider that we are not talking about history anymore, but about historiography.
Finally, on a more technical issue, we do not use many different tags in an article if they are all for basically the same problem, such as POV and UNDUE, we use only the most specific one. Even more: if the problem is not at the whole article, but just at a specific sentence or sentences, then we should remove the tag from the top of the article and use {{ Undue-inline}} instead. Cambalachero ( talk) 02:49, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
Despite an agreement Talk:War of the Pacific/Archive 7#Mediation of defensive/offensive issue. the current article [11] insists to presume a defensive alliance: 'The forces of Chile fought a defensive alliance of Bolivia and Peru.. That is a clear violation of the NPOV of the Wikipedia rules. -- Keysanger ( what?) 10:48, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
Everyone, just take a minute to think before anything gets out of hand.
There is nothing wrong about either of these things, nothing "extremely nationalistic" (which is really an exaggeration and quite an aggressive title for this section). Best of wishes.-- MarshalN20 | Talk 21:58, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
I posted an arbitration request against user MarshalN20 because of his edits in the article. Best regrads, -- Keysanger ( what?) 15:11, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
It is astonishing that 2 sources are enough to write in the that there was no Bolivian declaration of war. One of the sources (a broken link) is the Peruvian newspaper "La Razon", known not for its scientific art but for his anti-Chilean resentements.
I found 15 sources that state that there was a Bolivian declaration of war and such a overwhelming opinion about the Bolivian declaration of war must be included in the text and as the common view of the historians. The no-declaration-of-war theory can also be included but as a rand view. Here the list of sources:
Extended content
|
---|
|
Best Regards, -- Keysanger ( what?) 16:11, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
Extended content
|
---|
|
These sources are more than enough to demonstrate that Daza's decree was not a true declaration of war. Not only does Daza explain this, as sourced by Sater, but the information is backed up by historical analysis. On the other hand, the sources presented by Keysanger are merely textual parrots, merely stating that Bolivia declared war without any further analysis. It's important to mention that the article does present Chile's view about Daza's decree. However, Keysanger is trying to use the WP concept of "Undue weight" to present Chile's POV as supreme and leave the analysis of Daza's decree (including Daza's own opinion about his decree) as "minority views".-- MarshalN20 | Talk 18:49, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
Hi Marshal, I am inclined to agree that Keysanger has made a point here, and that it is probably too strong to have Wikipedia assert as a fact that, "under international law at that time neither side had actually declared war". That is an absolute statement. I think the statement should be attributed, i.e. "According to X, ...". When Wikipedia's voice makes an absolute statement, it should be a statement of an uncontested fact. Also I am finding it confusing that Keysanger's sources do indeed say that Bolivia declared war - not just that Chile thought Bolivia declared war. If these historians are wrong, the article doesn't help me to understand why they are wrong. I am happy to be persuaded otherwise? Also (a suggestion to both Keysanger & MarshalN20), having multiple threads open discussing multiple disputes at the same time is probably not ideal. Should we try to resolve this point first? Alex Harvey ( talk) 15:47, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
How about this for statement: "After the Chilean invasion of Antofagasta, Hilarión Daza made a presidential decree which demanded the expulsion of Chileans and the nationalizing of Chilean private property. Due to its aggressiveness, the Chilean government understood the decree as a declaration of war. However, although both nations had already taken aggressive actions, in reality no war had yet been formally declared from either side of the conflict."--[|!*//MarshalN20\\*!|] (talk) 00:56, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
This discussion continues in Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard#War_of_the_Pacific_:_Bolivian_declaration_of_war. -- Keysanger ( what?) 23:39, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
::::::At 18:49, on 22 July 2011 (UTC)MarshalN20 wrote
[25]:
Two weeks after the Chilean occupation of Antofagasta, he declared that Chile had imposed "a state of war" on Bolivia. Apparently this decree did not constitute a formal declaration of belligerence, which he announced on 18 March."
Two weeks after the Chilean occupation of Antofagasta, he declared that had imposed "a state of war" on Bolivia. Apparently this decree did not constitute a formal declaration of belligerence, which he announced on 18 March.
I revisited a link of former discussions and found:
Under [28], page 69 and 70, a book of the Iowa University which includes official statements of the governments, letters , etc of that time.
In page 69 and 70 the book, under the title "N°28. Bolivian War Circular, March 31, 1879" states following:
There can't be any doubt that the British government was informed about the Bolivian declaration of war. Also the Chilean governmaent understand the Bolivian declaration of war as a declaration of war (see Gonzalo Bulnes).
Best Regards, -- Keysanger ( what?) 18:53, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
La Paz did not supinely accept the loss of its seacoast: some eight to ten thousand of its residents massed in one of the capital's main plazas demanding weapons so they could expel the Chilean filibusters who had seized their coast. In truth, these enthusiastic but utterly unprepared volunteers could do nothing. Even President Hilarion Daza had to limit himself to symbolic gestures: two weeks after the Chilean occupation of Antofagasta, he declared that Chile had imposed "a state of war" on Bolivia. Apparently this decree did not constitute a formal declaration of belligerence, which he announced on 18 March. Only on 5 April did Santiago reciprocate, plunging South America's west coast into what became known as the War of the Pacific, a conflict which lasted until 1884.
Sater wrote more than one book about this theme, he is a profesor of Latin American History in the USA and probably one of the best informed person in the world about the War of the Pacific, so I cited him as often as needed. I don't understand you, Alex, why do you find unfair and tricky to use Sater three times, one from page 28 and another from page 39 of "Andean Tragedy" and other from page 9 of "Chile and the War of the Pacific". Yourself have problems to understand the first citation of Sater (page 28), that I cited wrong, then you can use the second (page 39) and the thrird ones (page 9) to see that Sater without any doubt asserts that there was a Bolivian declaration of war. Keysanger, the bottom line is I did not think you intended to deceive here, and I said the same I think to Marshal. It gave me the impression that 15 historians supported your view whereas it turned out to be 12. In retrospect I can see there may have been other reasons for you to emphasise Sater so sorry about that. Alex Harvey ( talk) 13:21, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
Sater's sentence: "Two weeks after the Chilean occupation of Antofagasta, he declared that Chile had imposed "a state of war" on Bolivia. Apparently this decree did not constitute a formal declaration of belligerence, which he announced on 18 March." is for me very clear.
The word Apparently in Sater's sentence means "for some persons" and to avoid any ambiguity he says at the end "which he announced on 18 March". We remember that the Chilean occupation of Antofagasta occured on 14 February, so the first "declaration" was two weeks later, we say end of February or begin March. The second declaration was also on 18 March.
If MarshallN20 still has problems with the first citation of Sater, then he should use the second one from a second book and the third one from a third book. I don't see there ANY problem in Sater's stance.
It doesn't matter whether the author of the NYT is a Chinese or a Canadian, it is matter only that it is published by the NYT one of the most consulted newspapers of the world opposite to MarshallN20 "La Razón".-- Keysanger ( what?) 11:19, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
I repeat. If you have any doubt about Sater's opinion in the first citation, what do you think of the second or the third?. -- Keysanger ( what?) 11:19, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
Many of the sources presented by Keysanger throw dates randomly, and others simply don't even bother to mention them. Daza's decree was made on March 1st (this is an established fact), and yet many of Keysanger's sources say that it was on March 18, February 14, and March 14. Some sources don't even provide a date. Considering these sources provide erroneous dates, I consider their usage as reference to "Daza's declaration of war" as incorrect.-- MarshalN20 | Talk 23:12, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
Alright, this took a while and hopefully it will be something everyone can agree with to end this part of the discussion. I used Keysanger's sources from the list which mentioned the March 1 decree as a declaration of war, and did not use those which failed to mention it (i.e., those sources that simply stated, "Bolivia declared war", without explaining when or how). I ended up presenting 3 points of view: The first is that of the pro-war group; the second is the anti-war group; the last is the don't-care group (which don't attribute anything important to the March 1st decree). It needs better source formatting, but I'm sure that's not a problem since the material is cited with enough information. Without further words, here it is:
Daza's decree is a controversial subject in the history of the conflict. One side of the historical analysis affirms that the decree signifies a Bolivian declaration of war against Chile. [1] [2] [3] [4] Another side argues that the decree was not a declaration of war, but rather it was a security measure taken in response to the Chilean invasion of Antofagasta. This side further argues that Chile purposely interpreted Daza's decree as a declaration of war in order to justify their invasion of Bolivia. [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] Other historians completely avoid mentioning Daza's decree, and instead focus on other causes for the start of the conflict. [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] Bolivian historian Ramiro Prudencio Lizon states that "Daza had no interest in declaring war, because he knew that Bolivia was not in conditions to affront a campaign against a country much superior in belligerent resources and which counted with a powerful navy." [16] On March 12, Richard Gibbs, United States Ambassador to Peru, wrote a letter to his government explaining that neither Bolivia or Chile had declared war up to that point. [17] According to American historian William F. Sater, on March 18, Hilarión Daza clarified that his March 1st decree was not a declaration of war. [18]
Any suggestions are welcome.-- MarshalN20 | Talk 00:43, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
Alright. Here is another attempt at consensus:
Daza's decree is a controversial subject in the history of the conflict. The Chilean government interpreted the decree as a declaration of war, and the majority of historians have since then debated the legitimacy of Chile's claim. Historians Erick Goldstein, Hans-Joachim König, and Philipp Reclam are among those who claim that Daza's March 1st decree is a war declaration retaliating to Chile's invasion of Antofagasta. [19] [20] On the other hand, historians Tommaso Caivano, William Sater, and Valentin Abecia Baldivieso are among those who claim that Daza's March 1st decree was only a security measure given Chile's armed invasion and not a declaration of war. [21] [22] [23] Historian Ramiro Prudencion Lizon explains that Chile required an official declaration of war to advance further north into the Bolivian coast; [24] which is why, according to historians Mariano Felipe Paz Soldán and Atilio Sivirichi, Chile purposely distorted Daza's decree to justify its occupation of Bolivia's coast. [25] [26] Nonetheless, a small number of historians, including William Sater and Robert Scheina, believe that Bolivia declared war on March 18; [27] [28] and another group believes the war declaration came in March 14. [29] [30]
I am not sure if it would be good to include the information explaining that the March 18th information is, according to Lavalle (primary source) and Basadre (secondary source), the copy of the March 1st declaration which circulated Chile. As always, any help is appreciated.-- MarshalN20 | Talk 01:31, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
It is time to recapitulate.
I see that MarshalN20 is running out of sources:
Extended content
|
---|
|
MarshalN20 could bring 2 Bolivians and 1 Peruvian historians for this new theory and two sources for the Bolivian declaration of war (Sater and William Spence Robertson).
What have we to verify the Bolivian declaration of war:
Extended content
|
---|
|
Please, read carefuly my sources again, I added 3 new sources (Besadre, Farcau, Lavalle/Negri) and compacted Sater's 2 citations of one book to only one source. What can we say about the sources that sustain the Bolivian declaration of war:
And what to do with the 4 historians that asserts there was no declaration at all?. It depends. It depends of how much original research we want to do. I refuse to participate in a "WP research group War of the Pacific". It would be very interesting but I don't have so much time and we could not publish the results in the English Wikipedia. Anyway, they are a footnote in the history and that should remain also in Wikipedia.
I abstain to made a concrete proposal, my English is still not perfect. Best regards, -- Keysanger ( what?) 11:23, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
Okay... a few things... definitely Marshal should remove primary sources from his list. Keysanger, your sources (viii) and (x) are the same source. And I don't regard Sater as a reliable source while he appears to make contradictory statements. Are you able to declare the nationality of all your sources just as you've revealed the nationality of Marshal's?
Alex Harvey (
talk) 12:59, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
Alex, Bolivia did'nt declare war to Chile in March 18, 1879; I don't have any single reference of such statement in any other book apart from Sater, in fact the only document taken by the Chilean Goverment as a "Declaration of War is the Decree of March 1, 1879, and this document says (in Spanish):
Considerando:
Que el Gobierno de Chile ha invadido de hecho el territorio nacional, sin observar las reglas del Derecho de Gentes, ni las prácticas de los pueblos civilizados, expulsando violentamente a las autoridades y nacionales recidentes en el departamento de Cobija.
Que el Gobierno de Bolivia se encuentra en el deber de dictar medidas enérgicas que la gravedad de la situación, sin apartarse, no obstante, de los principios que consagra el derecho público de las naciones.
Decreto:
Articulo 1° Queda cortado todo comercio y comunicación con la República de Chile mientras dure la guerra que ha promovido a Bolivia.
Articulo 2° Los chilenos residentes en el territorio boliviano serán obligados a desocuparlo en el término de dies dias, contados desde la notificación que se les hiciere por la autoridad pública nacional, pudiendo llevar consigo sus papeles privados, su equipaje y articulos de menaje mayor.
Articulo 3° La expulsión ordenada en el artículo anterior sólo podrá ser suspendida en el término que fuera estrictamente indispensable por causa de enfermedad u otro impedimento grave, a juicio de la autoridad.
Articulo 4° Se procederá por las autoridades respectivas al embargo bélico de las propiedades muebles e inmuebles pertenecientes a los súbditos chilenos, en el territorio de la República, con excepción de los objetos designados en el articulo 2°.
Las empresas mineras pertenecientes a chilenos o en las que hubiere accionistas de esa nacionalidad podrán continuar su giro, a cargo de un administrador nombrado por la autoridad o con la intervención de un representante del fisco, según creyera aquélla más conveniente.
Articulo 5° Los productos netos de las empresas mineras perteneciente a chilenos o a las acciones correspondientes a los mismos, serán empozados en el tesoro nacional.
Articulo 6° El embargo mandado por este Decreto se convertirá en consfiscación definitiva, siempre que el género de las hostilidades que ejerzan las fuerzas chilenas requieran una retaliación enérgica de parte de Bolivia.
Articulo 7° Se desconoce toda transferencia de intereses chilenos, hecha con posterioridad al 8 de noviembre último, en cuya fecha el Gobierno chileno declaró nulo el tratado de 1874, debiendo considerarse como simulado todo contrato que se hubiere pactado a este respecto.
El ministro de Gobierno y Relaciones Exteriores cuidará de la publicación y ejecución de este Decreto.
As you can read, the text doesn't include the sentence: "La Républica de Bolivia declara la guerra a Chile", in fact, the decree establish than its instructions are only valid until the state-of-war persist between Bolivia and Chile, and this measures can be reverted or become permanent in function to the escalation of the hostilities, clearly initiated by the Chilean Republic. This decree cannot be interpretated as a "war declaration", that is the Chilean version of the fact since the war and here in Wikipedia we have the duty to show the fact as they really was, not sustain a lie initiated more than a hundred years ago. Greetings. -- Cloudaoc ( talk) 15:39, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
Extended content
|
---|
|
Marshal et al., Keysanger has written above There were 2 Bolivian declarations, the first one was on 1st March and the second on 14th or 18th March 1879. Why? The 14th March is the date of the arrival to Lima and 18th March the date of the arrival to Santiago? We don't know. So even if the 1st March was less than a formal declaration of war historians seem to agree that there was a formal declaration on 14th or 18th. It's not obvious to me why there would be confusion but there obviously is. For the most part I think Keysanger's analysis of the sources presented so far is fair and accurate. On primary sources, it is true that we are allowed to use them to some extent but the issue at hand here is what the reliable secondary sources say. When determining appropriate
weight we only care about the weight as found in reliable secondary sources.
Alex Harvey (
talk) 01:48, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
We have the same problem like editors of the death of Salvador Allende, John Kennedy, Osama Bin Laden, etc. There is little or no evidence about the circumtances of their death but all serious historians say they are death. There is no reason to say, "John Kennedy is probably alive because we don't know how many snipers killed him". In the same way, there is no reason to write "Author XYZ says Kennedy is death". He is death, all authors say it, they differ in the circumtances of his death.
So lets us say what we know, and abstain to make a digression.
I propound for:
"Lede":
for "Crisis":
Best regrads, -- Keysanger ( what?) 13:39, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
I completely disagree with your proposal. You're trying to place this subject on the same level of a conspiracy theory or myth, and that is completely erroneous. Both you and I have provided several sources which discuss the matter and provide their explanations for the events which took place at this time. What has been demonstrated from these sources is that no consensus exists among historians as to whether Bolivia declared war on March 1 or not, and that a few historians (minority per Undue Weight) attribute war to the 14th or 18th. The purpose of Wikipedia is to present all points of view in order to achieve NPOV.
What we know so far:
Based on these sources, I propose the following paragraph for the Crisis section:
Daza's decree is a controversial subject in the history of the conflict. Chile interpreted the decree as a declaration of war, [31] [32] a decision whose legitimacy has faced considerable debate in the historical community. Those in favor of Chile's interpretation, including Erick Goldstein and Hans-Joachim König, explain that decree was a war declaration retaliating Chile's invasion of Bolivian territory. [33] [34] This group suggests that Bolivia's declaration of war tried to prevent Chile from receiving further military equipment, and, according to Jorge Basadre, also tried to prevent Peru's diplomatic mediation from succeeding. [35] Those against Chile's interpretation, including Tommaso Caivano and William F. Sater, explain that the decree was nothing more than a security measure given Chile's military invasion. [36] [37] [38] This group suggests that Chile, in need of a justification for its occupation of Bolivia, [39] purposely distorted Daza's decree. [40] [41] Nonetheless, some historians provide different perspectives as to when Bolivia possibly declared war. According to Bruce Farcau, Bolivia's legislature authorized a formal declaration of war on February 27. Farcau, along with Bruce St. John and Martin Sicker, claim that Bolivia then declared war on March 14. [42] [43] [44] According to William Sater and Robert Scheina, Bolivia's declaration of war took place on March 18, [45] [46] but José Antonio de Lavalle (Peruvian senior diplomat and envoy to Chile) writes in his diary that March 18 is the date when Daza's March 1 decree was made public in Chile; [47] a story corroborated by historian Jorge Basadre. [48]
This proposal includes all points of view in the discussion, directly addresses the issue, and lets the reader understand the controversial nature of the situation. No "Bolivia declared war and that's that" kind of idea which Keysanger seems to support.-- MarshalN20 | Talk 16:59, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
Extended content
|
---|
|
It seems most sources agree that Bolivia declared war in March. The problem is that, for every single date, a contrasting explanation is provided:
I am willing to write another consensus proposal based on these points, but I would like to know (from Keysanger mainly) whether he agrees or disagrees with these points. Also, any suggestions as to how this may be included are welcome.-- MarshalN20 | Talk 13:10, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
I'll try, although I suspect there are many fine details of the history I haven't understood:
On February 27 the Bolivian legislature issued the authorization for a declaration of war, although it was not immediately announced. Instead, on March 1, Daza issued a decree which prohibited all commerce and communications with Chile "while the state-of-war provoked upon Bolivia lasts", provided Chileans ten days to leave Bolivian territory unless gravely ill or handicapped, embargoed Chilean furniture, property, and mining produce, allowed Chilean mining companies to continue operating under a government-appointed administrator, and provided all embargoes as temporary "unless the hostilities exercised by Chilean forces requires an energetic retaliation from Bolivia". Then on March 14, Daza announced to representatives of foreign powers that a state of war now existed between herself and Chile. Bolivia then called on Peru to activate the alliance treaty, arguing that the Chile's invasion constituted a casus foederis. Chile, meanwhile, called on Peru to remain neutral.
I don't see any need to say anything else about the March 1 decree. Alex Harvey ( talk) 12:27, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
Best regards, Keysanger ( what?) 10:55, 5 August 2011 (UTC)On February 27 was issued in La Paz the general war manifesto with the authorization for a declaration of war, although it was not immediately announced. Instead, on March 1, Daza issued a decree which prohibited all commerce and communications with Chile "while the state-of-war provoked upon Bolivia lasts", provided Chileans ten days to leave Bolivian territory unless gravely ill or handicapped, embargoed Chilean furniture, property, and mining produce, allowed Chilean mining companies to continue operating under a government-appointed administrator, and provided all embargoes as temporary "unless the hostilities exercised by Chilean forces requires an energetic retaliation from Bolivia". Then on March 14, Bolivia announced to representatives of foreign powers that a state of war now existed between herself and Chile and called on Peru to activate the alliance treaty, arguing that the Chile's invasion constituted a "casus foederis". Chile, meanwhile, called on Peru to remain neutral.
On February 27, Daza issued a proclamation which informed Bolivians about the invasion and called for patriotic support against the invaders. Later, on March 1, he issued a decree which prohibited all commerce and communications with Chile "while the state-of-war provoked upon Bolivia lasts", provided Chileans ten days to leave Bolivian territory unless gravely ill or handicapped, embargoed Chilean furniture, property, and mining produce, allowed Chilean mining companies to continue operating under a government-appointed administrator, and provided all embargoes as temporary "unless the hostilities exercised by Chilean forces requires an energetic retaliation from Bolivia". Then on March 14, Bolivia announced to representatives of foreign powers in Lima that a state of war now existed between herself and Chile; and called on Peru to activate the alliance treaty, arguing that the Chile's invasion constituted a casus foederis.
I propouse:
On February 27 the Bolivian legislature issued the authorization for a declaration of war, although it was not immediately announced. Instead, on March 1, Daza issued a declaration of war on Chile and prohibited all commerce and communications with Chile "while the state-of-war provoked upon Bolivia lasts", provided Chileans ten days to leave Bolivian territory unless gravely ill or handicapped, embargoed Chilean furniture, property, and mining produce, allowed Chilean mining companies to continue operating under a government-appointed administrator, and provided all embargoes as temporary "unless the hostilities exercised by Chilean forces requires an energetic retaliation from Bolivia". Then on March 14, Bolivia announced to representatives of foreign powers in Lima that a state of war now existed between herself and Chile. Bolivia then called on Peru to activate the alliance treaty, arguing that the Chile's invasion constituted a casus foederis. Chile, meanwhile, called on Peru to remain neutral.
--Best regards, Keysanger ( what?) 12:01, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
On March 1, Bolivia issued a declaration of war on Chile and prohibited all commerce and communications with Chile "while the state-of-war provoked upon Bolivia lasts", provided Chileans ten days to leave Bolivian territory unless gravely ill or handicapped, embargoed Chilean furniture, property, and mining produce, allowed Chilean mining companies to continue operating under a government-appointed administrator, and provided all embargoes as temporary "unless the hostilities exercised by Chilean forces requires an energetic retaliation from Bolivia". Then on March 14, Bolivia announced to representatives of foreign powers in Lima that a state of war now existed between herself and Chile. Bolivia then called on Peru to activate the alliance treaty, arguing that the Chile's invasion constituted a casus foederis. Chile, meanwhile, called on Peru to remain neutral. Peru refused.
News of the Chilean invasion reached Hilarión Daza on February 20, but he decided to postpone its mention until the end of ongoing carnival festitivities. On February 27, Daza made a public manifesto informing Bolivians about the invasion and calling for patriotic support. Later, on March 1, he issued a decree which prohibited all commerce and communications with Chile "while the state-of-war provoked upon Bolivia lasts", provided Chileans ten days to leave Bolivian territory unless gravely ill or handicapped, embargoed Chilean furniture, property, and mining produce, allowed Chilean mining companies to continue operating under a government-appointed administrator, and provided all embargoes as temporary "unless the hostilities exercised by Chilean forces requires an energetic retaliation from Bolivia". Then, on March 14, Bolivia announced to representatives of foreign powers in Lima that a state of war now existed between herself and Chile; and called on Peru to activate the alliance treaty, arguing that the Chile's invasion constituted a casus foederis.
On February 27, Daza issued a proclamation which informed Bolivians about the invasion and called for patriotic support against the invaders. Later,on March 1,heBolivia issued adecree whichDeclaration of war on Chile and prohibited all commerce and communications with Chile "while the state-of-war provoked upon Bolivia lasts", provided Chileans ten days to leave Bolivian territory unless gravely ill or handicapped, embargoed Chilean furniture, property, and mining produce, allowed Chilean mining companies to continue operating under a government-appointed administrator, and provided all embargoes as temporary "unless the hostilities exercised by Chilean forces requires an energetic retaliation from Bolivia". Then on March 14, Bolivia announced to representatives of foreign powers in Lima that a state of war now existed between herself and Chile; and called on Peru to activate the alliance treaty, arguing that the Chile's invasion constituted a casus foederis. Chile, meanwhile, called on Peru to remain neutral. Peru refused.
News of the Chilean invasion reached Hilarión Daza on February 20, but he decided to postpone its mention until the end of ongoing carnival festitivities. On February 27, Daza made a public manifesto informing Bolivians about the invasion and calling for patriotic support. Later, on March 1, he issued a decree which prohibited all commerce and communications with Chile "while the state-of-war provoked upon Bolivia lasts", provided Chileans ten days to leave Bolivian territory unless gravely ill or handicapped, embargoed Chilean furniture, property, and mining produce, allowed Chilean mining companies to continue operating under a government-appointed administrator, and provided all embargoes as temporary "unless the hostilities exercised by Chilean forces requires an energetic retaliation from Bolivia". Then, on March 14, Bolivia announced to representatives of foreign powers in Lima that a state of war now existed between herself and Chile; and called on Peru to activate the alliance treaty, arguing that the Chile's invasion constituted a casus foederis.
When did Bolivia issue the declaration of war?. --Best regards, Keysanger ( what?) 17:19, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
@Alex,
Precisely that is the question, the interpretation of the decree of 1. March. WP editors must abtain of interpretations of primary sources. Cloudac and MarshalN20 would like to read the decree and say "look at there, nowhere is the word declaration!, it isn't a declaration of war!" and then they would follow "Under international law there has been never a declaration of war ...". That would be original research. Look at that:
The english Wikipedia accepts interpretations of primary sources only if they are done by secondary sources and the Lowest common denominator of the list of 20 sources is that there was a Bolivian declaration of war. We can vary the date, because there is a lot of uncertainty on account of the non-existing telegraph line to La Paz but not about the core of the message of the historians, there is no confusion: the historians interpret the decree as a declaration of war.
I propose as date "in the Middle March" or "in March". In no way should the reader be mislead to the presuption that there wasn't a Bdow.
--Best regards, Keysanger ( what?) 15:31, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
I recognize a uncertainty in my source University of Iowa because I can't find the word declaration. But there are the words Procamation of War, War Circular and General War Manifesto (pages 66, 70, 66). I think one of the three is a War declaration. May be?. --Best regards, Keysanger ( what?) 15:43, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
We have long discussed about the issue and find out that there was a Bolivian declaration of war but were astonished about the different dates authors assign to this event. There were 4 dates: 27 February, 1., 14. and 18. March 1879.
Alex and Keysanger don't have any trouble understanding the discrepancy in the dates given Boliva's lack of telegraph lines, but how have to be ordered and understand?
The 27. February is not very important because it was only an authorization for the war given by the legislature within a dictature. Only an ornamental question. Moreover 1866 (?), the Bolivian legislature had already issued a similar authorization but nothing occured.
The German book that deals in detail with the question 1.-14. February. It is Gerhard Lang's, "Boliviens Streben nach freiem Zugang zum Meer", Hamburger Gesellschaft für Völkerrecht und Auswärtige Politik, edited by Prof. Dr. Herbert Krüger, Band 6, Hamburg 1966, page 25:
Die peruanisch-chilenischen Verhandlungen waren noch im Gange. Da gab der bolivianische Sonderbevollmächtigte in Perú, Außenminister Serapio Reyes Ortiz, der den Auftrag hatte, von der peruanischen Regierung gemäß Artikel 3 des Bündnisvertrages von 1873 die Anerkennung des casus foederis zu erwirken, namens seiner Regierung dem bei der peruanischen Regierung akkreditierten diplomatischen Korps am 14. März durch Zirkularnote die vom 1. März datierte Kriegserklärung Boliviens an Chile(Fußnote 54) bekannt. Dieser ungewöhnliche Schritt, eine Kriegserklärung auf diese Weise publik zu machen, erklärt sich daraus, daß zu jener Zeit nur wenige Länder in La Paz vertreten waren und die Nachrichtenübermittlung von dort wesentlich längere Zeit benötigte als von Lima aus. Mit der rechtzeitigen Bekanntgabe der Kriegserklärung aber sollten die Auslieferung von Kriegsschiffen, die bei europäischen Werften im Auftrag gegeben worden waren, und weitere Waffenlieferungen an Chile verhindert werden. (Fußnote 54: State papers, Bd. 71, S. 926)
Translation 1:
The Peruvian-Chilean negotiations were still in progress when, on his government's behalf, the Bolivian special plenipotentiary in Peru, foreign minister Serapio Reyes Ortiz, who was commissioned to obtain the Peruvian government's recognition of casus foederis according to article 3 of the 1873 treaty of alliance, announced Bolivia's declaration of war on Chile (Footnote 54), dated March 1 by circular note, to the diplomatic Corps accredited to Peru on March 14. This unusual step, to make public a declaration of war in this fashion, can be explained by the fact that only few countries were represented in La Paz at the time, and communications from there took significantly longer than from Lima. The timely announcement of the declaration of war, however, was supposed to impede the deployment of war ships that had been commissioned to European shipyards, as well as the delivery of weapons to Chile.
Translation 2:
The Peruvian-Chilean negotiations were still in progress. At that time, on his government's behalf, the Bolivian special plenipotentiary in Peru, foreign minister Serapio Reyes Ortiz announced Bolivia's declaration of war on Chile (Footnote 54), dated March 1 by circular note, to the diplomatic Corps accredited to Peru on 14. March. (Reyes Ortiz had been commissioned to obtain the Peruvian government's recognition of casus foederis according to article 3 of the 1873 Treaty of Alliance.) The unusual step of making public a declaration of war in this fashion can be explained by the fact that only few countries were represented in La Paz at the time, and communications from there took significantly longer than from Lima. The timely announcement of the declaration of war, however, was meant to impede the deployment of warships that had been commissioned from European shipyards, as well as the delivery of weapons to Chile.
The information given in the paragraph explains the relationship between the declaration of war issued by Daza in La Paz on 1. March and the anouncement of Bolivian foreign minister Reyes in Lima on 14. March. Lacking enough international resonance from the declaration in La Paz they declared it also in Lima in order to stop delivery of weapons to Chile.
About the 18. March, Jose Lavalle's report ("Mi mision en Chile en 1879", Edición, prólogo y notas por Félix Denegri Luna , Lima, Peru, 1979, Instituto de Estudios Histórico-Marítimos del Perú.) states that (page 84):
(The text of envoy Lavalle is a primary source)
Jorge Besadre, the wellknown Peruvian historician states that same in "Historia de la Republica, La guerra con Chile",
That is, on 18 March was published in Chilean official newspaper the Bolivian declaration of war. For understandable reasons some authors skips to repeat the date of the 1. March or the date of the 14 March or the date of the 18. March.
My proposal for the article is:
In view of the fact that the 22 given sources support the text of the proposal, there should be no reason to bring the case to the RfC, what in any case can be done if Alex or others insists.
--Best regards, Keysanger ( what?) 12:50, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 5 | ← | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | → | Archive 15 |
Why they are controversial? we will explain it in this page, one by one. It will takes time but an open debate is necesary to get a neutral article.
Acording to the chilean ministry of foreign affairs in april 1879 Chile had an army of 7.000 mens and 13.000 comblains rifles...
. Rasdar2 ( talk) 16:23, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
I was asked to comment on the RFC as a neutral commentator by Keysanger to give full disclosure. I don't claim my comments are the result of an in depth examination of the issue and I'm not an expert on the history; though I do have some familiarity. Also I haven't worked or collaborated with Keysanger.
Coming from a neutral perspective there are partisan texts on both sides. Hence, it is difficult to produce a neutral text since both sides can produce a source to support their issue. I would suggest that rather sticking to sources from a particular side, you might consider using sources from a neutral 3rd party or both sides. It is also very easy to fall into the trap of giving undue prominence to certain material. You might also explore trying to find neutral language that doesn't favour either side - not an easy prospect I acknowledge. You also need to stop trying on both sides to paint the other as "wrong".
There are ownership issues on both sides as well; though I note primarily accusations are bandied at one particular party. Being honest there appears to be a group of editors ranged against one, who is an established contributor. The dispute over content is also needlessly being personalised by both sides. There is no right version. I'm going to suggest that you consider the mediation cabal as a means of establishing a collaborative working relationship.
My 2c worth, you may take it as you find it. I can try and act as a neutral referee if you like. I do have some Spanish but I'll freely admit its not the greatest. Justin talk 14:55, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
UNINDENT
If everyone is happy for me to act as neutral referee I'm happy to help. Could I start by asking if there is agreement. Then I would suggest that everyone lists the content issues with the article. Please focus on the content rather than individuals and keep the comments focused on content. OK? Justin talk 21:01, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
OK the way I propose that the dispute is to be resolved is to look for a neutral third party source that is acceptable to both sides. Ideally a source that discusses the origins of the war. Primarily I suggest we rely on secondary sources of this nature, I agree that we should not disregard primary sources, particularly for example where we require a citation for a particular aspect of the article. However, for the main part of the article we should look to secondary sources.
The reason I suggest this, is that many primary sources are written from the partisan view point of the author. For example a Chilean may see the Bolivian imposition of taxes as illegal, whereas the Bolivian side will see that fundamentally differently. That is a mere example, nothing more.
If the content disputes were resolved in es.wikipedia, then I agree we should look at that article. For now I think we should first agree an article structure.
Is that an acceptable proposal? Justin talk 15:37, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
I would support using for the most contentious issues (e.g. the tax, war declaration, and third countries involvement) secondary sources to begin with. I would also support the use of primary sources, as long as the proposed (or contested) text is discussed here first.
The other proposal of translating the Spanish Version can be also a viable and temporary solution, but perhaps not the ideal one. For one, sources written in English should be preferred in the English Wikipedia as they're easier to be verified by the non-Spanish reader. In case there’s not an English source, a translation of a Spanish version could be used. But it would have to be done with a lot of care and ideally peer-reviewed to avoid any misinterpretation.
I think there are good English sources that can be used to start off.
These secondary sources are all written in a scholarly manner, comply well with
WP:RSUE,
WP:RS and the authors are not Chilean, Peruvian or Bolivian, so concerns of nationalistic bias can hardly be pin-pointed to them.
Finally, I would agree with somebody’s proposal of not making this discussion about a particular user. It's a moot point by now and it doesn’t really help to move things forward, but instead creates a non-friendly and un-collaborative environment. Regards,
Likeminas (
talk) 16:16, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
PS: I've Sandboxed an old version of this article in case some text and sources can be used.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Likeminas/Sandbox
Likeminas (
talk) 16:49, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
Well, before I go back into my status of mere viewer, I'd like to point out that there is still a deep issue concerning the citation standards in this article. I think that User:Fifelfoo did an excellent job in his RfC in order to help improve this article's citation structure; but User:Keysanger went into a mass deletion of sources and completely changed things to a kind of citation format that is really, at least by my standards, unacceptable. He even tried to trick Fifelfoo by telling him that he had done as he recommended, but the truth is still plainly there: The citation format in this article is terrible. Here are some recommendation points I'd like to provide:
It really is bound to help out the article. I think one of the key problems is that Keysanger's earlier method was to quote directly the source inside the citation, and even still some little side-comments (explanations) of the source can be seen. These things are not necessary to be shown in the citation. One of the first rules of Wikipedia is to assume Good Faith, and thus it must be taken into good faith that the sources being listed mention the material being posted. If it is verified that a user has been using sources inappropiately (lying about their content), then that user should be inmediately reported. Next, providing explanations of the sources is really unecessary original research (nobody really cares about anybody else's opinion on the source; that's up for the reader to see).-- MarshalN20 | Talk 23:55, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
Greetings, I was checking the article and this paragraph:
After the battle there were fires and sackings in the towns of Chorrillos and Barranco, but over the wrongdoers there are one-sided information. Chilean authors incriminate demoralized Peruvian soldiers but Peruvian authors accuse drunken Chilean soldiers of the damages and crimes. Both versions must not be contradictory.
Is mainly sustained by the book of Sergio Villalobos, CHILE Y PERÚ, LA HISTORIA QUE NOS UNE Y NOS SEPARA 1535-1883, but this book was heavily questionated even by the own Chileans, for its excessive nationalism and contempt against Peru and Bolivia, an example is this review:
CHILE Y PERÚ, LA HISTORIA QUE NOS UNE Y NOS SEPARA 1535-1883, de Sergio Villalobos - Una sonrisa
Therefore, this source is not suitable to be an useful secondary source for this article, and the argument which blames Peruvian soldiers from part of the destruction of San Juan and Miraflores is based mainly on speculations of some Chilean authors, and many primary sources indicates than was the Chilean soldiers, nor the Peruvian ones, who commit the crimes involved in the destruction of the Limean towns. My sustain for this issue can be found in the archives of this talk page:
[ Issue #35 About the destruction of San Juan and Miraflores]
Keysanger replys (without any sustain) than the Peruvian govermnent control over the towns cease to exist after the battle and because of that, the Peruvian soldiers lost control and destroys the towns who few hours before protect with their own lives. I'll proceed to rewrite this section and the entire article related to the occupation of Lima. Greetings -- Cloudaoc ( talk) 16:44, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
wich is your source Keysenger? if you dont add one i will delete that sentence
Rasdar2 (
talk) 17:25, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
==>What exactly disqualifies Villalobos as a reliable source? As far as I know, the man is a professor at the University of Chile, one of the most prominent scholars of contemporary Chilean historiography and winner of the national history prize. [1] I won’t even go into debating the “reviews” or “critiques” that certain websites give him. I’ve seen good and bad “reviews” of that book. In any case, website reviews are not an academic measurementm of reliability.
I’m also aware that historical accounts from Peru, Bolivia and Chile don’t necessarily agree with each other and for that reason not all will have the same analysis and conclusion of an event.
I would agree on improving the statement (“...demoralized Peruvian soldiers destroyed cities...”) as it is not very accurate. I did read the book and Villalobos doesn’t claim Peruvians destroyed cities, he says that under the chaos of the initial Lima campaign, soldiers of the Peruvian army, saw an opportunity to also take part in the sacking of valuable objects.
(See also: : Charles de Varigny, "La Guerra del Pacifico", Imprenta Cervantes, Moneda 1170, Santiago de Chile, 1922, page XVIII rendía incondicionalmente. La soldadesca [peruana] desmoralizada y no desarmada saqueaba la ciudad en la noche del 16, el incendio la alumbraba siniestramente y el espanto reinaba en toda ella.
I know I posted this before, but please, read Wikipedia’s guideline on reliable sources regarding History: On many topics, there are different interpretive schools which use the same documents and facts but use different frameworks and come to different conclusions. So having contradictory accounts of a historical event, especially a war, is not very unusual. WP:NPOV in this cases requires, we present them all in an impartial way.
I proposed a re-writing of that paragraph during a previous discussion, so let me re-post it to see if we can reach a consensus with that one, or work it out from there.
However, In the view of Chilean historian Sergio Villalobos some of the looting was also carried out by Peruvians who saw under the chaos of the occupation an opportunity to acquire valuable objects. On the other hand, the Peruvian historiography has no such accounts and reaffirms that the looting was done solely by Chilean forces.
Let’s see what others say about this. Does it improve it? If not, what and how it can be improved? Likeminas ( talk) 15:08, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
In Chorrillos, after the battle, were civilians, and wounded soldiers defending the town. Upon entering the Chilean soldiers were fighting house to house with the Peruvians, burning homes to get them out. Among the houses were vineyards, that Chilean soldiers pillaged drunk, so all control was lost. There were scuffles and assassinations among Chileans themselves fighting for food and liquor. All this led to the looting, killings of peruvian civilians. In the city of Lima were peruvian soldiers, with them blacks, mulatto and bandits, who commited murders and looting mainly against Chinese people and stores. These excesses were due to the Chinese coolies served as porters on the Chilean army, also use the absence of order in the city. Attacks also took place against European merchants because they refused to accept Peruvians money.
Here's more on the Looting:
Looting had already begun in parts of the capital on the night of the 15th, but rioting and burning spread throughout the city on the 16th and well into the night. The municipal police had been conscripted into the army and were long gone, and any army troops still in uniform were streaming into the mountains to the east to carry on the war. It was not until the morning of the 17th of January that Rufino Torrico, the mayor of Lima, was able to appeal to the foreign diplomatic community to form an “urban guard” of their own nationals, mostly sailors and marines from the warships off Callao, to patrol the city and impose some kind of order, disarming deserters and rioters, killing about two hundred of them in Lima and another 150 in Callao in the process. The first Chilean troops entered the city at 1700 hours that day (17th of January)
What does this mean?
1)My first proposal was perhaps too harsh on the Chilean atrocities and too lenient on the Peruvian ones.
2)Bruce W. Farcau is not Chilean, so not only the Chilean the historiography accounts for riots, looting and destruction of Lima.
3)Peruvians started rioting and looting at least 2 days before the first Chilean troops entered Lima.
4)The slaughtering of these people (whether civilians or not) began before the Chilean army entered Lima.
I suggest we add this information into the article as well. Likeminas ( talk) 00:34, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
I have not much interest in circular debating, so here's another proposal that is supported by a secondary sources;
Chaos already reined in Lima before the arrival of the first Chilean troops. Looting had already begun in parts of the capital on the night of the 15th, but rioting and burning spread throughout the city on the 16th and well into the night. It was not until the morning of the 17th of January that Rufino Torrico, the mayor of Lima, was able to control the situation by appealing to the foreign diplomats to lend troops from foreign warships to patrol the city and impose some kind of order, disarming deserters and rioters, and in the process killing about two hundred of them in Lima and another 150 in Callao. It was during that same day at around 17:00 that Chilean troops entered Lima. Upon entering the city, Chilean soldiers were fighting house to house with the Peruvians, in some instances burning homes to get them out. Among the houses were vineyards, which Chilean soldiers pillaged. There were drunken scuffles and assassinations among Chileans themselves fighting for food and liquor. All this led to the looting, and killings of Peruvian civilians.
I wish others would give their opinions also, because achieving consensus in this article seem like a never-ending story. Likeminas ( talk) 14:28, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
The riots starts in Lima before...
In Chorrillos, after the battle, Chilean soldiers were fighting house to house with the Peruvians, in some instances burning homes to get them out. Among the houses were vineyards, which Chilean soldiers pillaged. There were drunken scuffles and assassinations among Chileans themselves fighting for food and liquor. All this led to the looting, and killings of Peruvian civilians. In Lima were peruvian soldiers dissolved, with them bandits, who commited murders and looting mainly against Chinese people, then Rufino Torrico, the mayor of Lima, control the situation by appealing to the foreign diplomats to lend troops from foreign warships to patrol the city and impose some kind of order, disarming soldiers and rioters
Arafael ( talk) 14:45, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
An explanation, Mollendo, Chorrillos, Barranco and Miraflores were sacked and burned by chilean dispersed soldiers(acording to some chileans authors in Chorrillos peruvians desmoralized soldiers took part too), Lima art and literaty treasures were sacked by orders of chilean occupation authorities(see Scheina's book page 388), it was an organizaded pillage very diferent from the others, after the battle of miraflores some peruvian soldiers and bandits began to sack and kill chinesse people (called colies) and their stores, the foreign urban guard restore the order after the entrance of chilean troops. The only controversial point is Chorrillos. There wasnt "massive peruvian raids" as keysenger said. Rasdar2 ( talk) 17:35, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
Keysenger quotes on Charles de Varigny only refers to Lima not to Chorrillos, Barranco and Miraflores as he said in the article. Rasdar2 ( talk) 18:07, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
I'm going to change these sentence to "as direct consequence of war several peruvian towns were bombed, sacked and destroyed" Rasdar2 ( talk) 16:28, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
I'm just added this section, using secondary sources only, although in my opinion them can be support by "primary sources". If someome (maybe you Keysanger) dont agree with something of the section, just send me a message and i will be glad to discuis and debate it. Greetings Rasdar2 ( talk) 16:56, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
As many of you know, the consequences of the War of the Pacific are really more of a "touchy" (delicate) subject than the war itself. Much of the content disputes of the article actually have its roots from the consequences of the war, rather than from the war itself. Now, I say this because I doubt that any of you participated in the War of the Pacific; but I'm sure that many of the contributors have been affected by the consequences of the war. I recommend to all of you that when dealing with this particular "Consequences of the War" section to do it with the best of intentions at heart and to only present factual information from truly reliable sourced material. In an earlier version of the article, I recall that it mentioned that "Peru and Bolivia had deep scars" left as a result of the war, but the truth of the matter is that all nations got deep consequences out of it. So, please avoid writing that section with any particular intention to insult or favor any of the nations; and those who may feel insulted by the material in there please remember to keep WP:GF (good faith) in mind. If any of you want to challenge the material there, challenge it with better sources and not by deleting sourced material.-- MarshalN20 | Talk 02:40, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
On the section of the "aftermath" of Peru, there is a source used from the University for Peace. In the article, the statement is directly attributed to the UoP, but at the bottom of the source there is this disclaimer from the UoP (You have to scroll down to the bottom of the web and look at the letters in small print, which IMO is quite comical since it reminds me of those cartoons where the small print is always secret and barely anybody can see due to its bad meaning): "Please note that all opinions expressed in the Peace and Conflict Monitor are those of the author only and do not represent the official position of the University for Peace."
Therefore, based on that, the statement from the source cannot be attributed to the University for Peace. Rather, its author is a certain person named "Rafael Velasquez." At the bottom of the reference there is also an informal note on Velasquez, which reads: "Rafael holds a MA in International Peace Studies from the United Nations University for Peace. He currently works in the area of communication for an International Organization and as consultant in the area of African Conflict Management. He may be reached at rvelasquez@alumni.upeace.org." The section should be edited appropiately based on these things. Best regards.-- MarshalN20 | Talk 17:39, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
should make it clear that this is an statement of opinion. Likeminas ( talk) 20:12, 2 November 2009 (UTC)Rafael Velasquez, a contributor for the University for Peace, writes......
I would like to propose the following for an introduction:
The War of the Pacific ( Spanish: Guerra del Pacífico) was a South American conflict that took place from 1879-1884 in which the forces of Chile fought against a defensive alliance 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 exact start of the war is a matter of dispute among historians, with some attributing the Bolivian presidential decree of Hilarion Daza as a declaration of war and others attributing Chile as the first nation to officially declare war. Although the conflict was originally a dispute between Chile and Bolivia over a 10 cents tax on the Antofagasta Nitrate & Railway Company, Peru got first involved in the matter as a mediator and, as a result of the Chilean invasion of the Bolivian port city of Antofagasta, Bolivia called upon a secret defensive alliance, which some historians consider offensive and aimed at Chile, that binded Peru to Bolivia in the case of foreign invasion of either one of the nation's territories.
The resulting five year war took place over a variety of terrain, beginning in the Atacama Desert of Bolivia and, later, as the Chilean forces advanced further north, into the deserts and mountainous regions of Peru. The first battle of the war, the Battle of Topáter, in which Chilean troops faced a defending force of Bolivian soldiers and civilians, took place before any declaration of war had been made by either side. However, once war had been declared, for most of the first year there was a focus on the Naval Campaign due to the strategic advantage of holding control of the seas in order to provide naval assistance to the land forces which would be having to battle in the Atacama desert, the world's driest desert. Even though the Peruvian Navy met with initial success, the naval campaign was eventually won by the Chilean Navy upon the capture of the Peruvian flagship monitor Huáscar and the death of Peru's prominent admiral Miguel Grau, known by all sides of the conflict as the "Knight of the Seas" due to his chivalry. Afterwards, the Land Campaign would result in a string of victories for the Chilean Army over the badly equipped and poorly trained troops of the Bolivian and Peruvian armies, which resulted in the complete defeat of Bolivia in the Battle of Tacna of May 26, 1880, and the annihilation of the Peruvian regular army after the Battle of Arica in June 7 of the same year. The land campaign reached its climax in 1881, with the Chilean occupation of Lima.
The remaining three years of the conflict turned into a guerrilla war between a union of what was left of the Peruvian army and some irregular troops under the command of General Andrés Avelino Cáceres, and the military forces of Chile with their base in Lima under the command of Admiral Patricio Lynch. The ensuing conflict would be known as the Campaign of the 'Breña (or Sierra, both which make reference to the Andes's rough terrain), and would be fairly successful as a resistance movement but inneffective in changing the course of the war. Eventually, after the defeat of Cáceres in the Battle of Huamachuco, Chile and Peru managed to reach a diplomatic solution on October 20, 1883, with the signing of the Treaty of Ancon (The treaty became effective in 1884). Bolivia and Chile would eventually also sign a separate peace treaty in 1884.
The conclusion of the conflict left deep scars on all sides involved, with much modern political conflict among these neighboring nations generally referring back to this war. Ultimately, the peace treaty led to the Chilean acquisition of the Peruvian territories of department of Tarapaca and province of Arica, as well as the disputed Bolivian department of Litoral, leaving Bolivia as a landlocked country.
So, what do you think?
I would have liked to expand a bit on the "plebsicite" of Arica and Tacna (which is itself quite a controversial topic), but did not mention it in order to prevent conflicts among editors.
Also, I have a certain lack of knowledge in regards to the prominent Chilean commanders during the war (only Lynch is well-known to me). I thought about mentioning Arturo Prat somehow, but decided against it since his participation in the war is really quite minimal and his death is really, well, kind of irrelevant for a summary (though he died in a heroic way, I think everyone here has to admit that his death was really silly). Similarly, I excluded the mention of Francisco Bolognesi (Bolognesi, Grau, and Caceres are Peru's best known commanders in the war; at least for Peruvians) because it was just as irrelevant and silly (though heroic as well; I wouldn't jump into an enemy ship like Prat, and I wouldn't try to take a stand if I know I'm going to get massacred like Bolognesi...but that's mainly because I consider those decisions irrational and stupid, but heroic nonetheless) as that of Prat. So, if anybody is willing to add perhaps the prominent commander of Chile that led the land campaign of the Atacama, that would be nice.
Like I've said before, I'm not trying to favor any particular side (or, at least that's not my intention) in the summary. I think it's definately an improvement from what is currently in the article, but just as in all Wiki articles it is subject to error and further improvement. Best regards.-- MarshalN20 | Talk 19:19, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
The article lists the dates as 1879-1884. But my understanding is that the war ended in October 1883 with the signing of the treaty. (that's also the date in the Wikipedia Spanish entry on the war) 2.38.107.109 ( talk) 17:26, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
Although some parts of the current andean territory of Argentina were nominally Bolivian before the war, the maps on the infobox and the main body of the text go far beyond that, incluiding vast parts of Argentine territory that were not Bolivian, such as the cities of Jujuy and Salta and their territories of influence. BTW, some of these were well-defined borders after Tarija chose to be part of Bolivia. I think these maps have to be mended. Salut, -- IANVS ( talk) 21:30, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
No mention of France's observation mission? How about of this figure involved: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abel-Nicolas_Bergasse_Dupetit_Thouars. His role is understood in Peru to have prevented excesses by the Chilean army after besting Peru's defenders and moving into Lima. Just curious. Rafajs77 ( talk) 05:41, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
International intervention in the War of the Pacific is present but subtle. It was attempted (on my part) to include many of these international views on the conflict, but other users used it to include their original research; this is why much of this information no longer appears on the article.-- MarshalN20 | Talk 22:12, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
Despite an agreement Talk:War of the Pacific/Archive 7#Mediation of defensive/offensive issue. the current article [10] insists to presume a defensive alliance: 'The forces of Chile fought a defensive alliance of Bolivia and Peru.. That is a clear violation of the NPOV of the Wikipedia rules. -- Keysanger ( what?) 10:48, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
Everyone, just take a minute to think before anything gets out of hand.
There is nothing wrong about either of these things, nothing "extremely nationalistic" (which is really an exaggeration and quite an aggressive title for this section). Best of wishes.-- MarshalN20 | Talk 21:58, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
I posted an arbitration request against user MarshalN20 because of his edits in the article. Best regrads, -- Keysanger ( what?) 15:11, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
I have noticed this discussion, and thought of some things about it.
First of all, the context. Bolivia and Peru had wrote a treaty of mutual defense, that's a fact. With "defense" understood in its technical meaning: if a third country would declare war to any of the countries in the treaty, the others would join against it. There are more facts, such as that the treaty was secret, that Chile was not invited to join it (Argentina was, but did not join it). To say that this means that the treaty was actually for Bolivia and Chile to unite against Chile is an opinion; but to say that is opinion was held by most Chileans and encouraged the hostilities in Chile is a fact (as it is an opinion attributed to those holding it). More or less, that's the context, the way things took place. The NPOV is broken if we try to settle who was fighting the " Just War". In any case, let's remember that the aggresor is not who declares war first, but who begins the hostilities first, and military hostilities may begin without a declaration of war (and even worse, war may be "declared" when it's already taking place).
Second, there's a point we should consider about some of the sources cited earlier: many authors say things in "summary style", depending on the scope of the book (a book specifically about the War of the Pacific is a better source than a book about latin american history as a whole). An author that considers the twisted scenario, checks the information, and concludes "the aggresor was X because..." (whenever X is Chile, Peru or Bolivia) is one thing, an author making a trivial mention about the beginng of the war is another. We should dismiss authors making trivial passing-by mentions, and work with those who acknowledge the existence of this dispute and explains their reasons for endorsing one or other side. Or, better yet, an authors that acknowledges the dispute and stands aside it, explaining something like "Chilean authors X and Y say (A), Peruvian author Z says (B), and Bolivian author XY considers (C)". Consider that we are not talking about history anymore, but about historiography.
Finally, on a more technical issue, we do not use many different tags in an article if they are all for basically the same problem, such as POV and UNDUE, we use only the most specific one. Even more: if the problem is not at the whole article, but just at a specific sentence or sentences, then we should remove the tag from the top of the article and use {{ Undue-inline}} instead. Cambalachero ( talk) 02:49, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
Despite an agreement Talk:War of the Pacific/Archive 7#Mediation of defensive/offensive issue. the current article [11] insists to presume a defensive alliance: 'The forces of Chile fought a defensive alliance of Bolivia and Peru.. That is a clear violation of the NPOV of the Wikipedia rules. -- Keysanger ( what?) 10:48, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
Everyone, just take a minute to think before anything gets out of hand.
There is nothing wrong about either of these things, nothing "extremely nationalistic" (which is really an exaggeration and quite an aggressive title for this section). Best of wishes.-- MarshalN20 | Talk 21:58, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
I posted an arbitration request against user MarshalN20 because of his edits in the article. Best regrads, -- Keysanger ( what?) 15:11, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
It is astonishing that 2 sources are enough to write in the that there was no Bolivian declaration of war. One of the sources (a broken link) is the Peruvian newspaper "La Razon", known not for its scientific art but for his anti-Chilean resentements.
I found 15 sources that state that there was a Bolivian declaration of war and such a overwhelming opinion about the Bolivian declaration of war must be included in the text and as the common view of the historians. The no-declaration-of-war theory can also be included but as a rand view. Here the list of sources:
Extended content
|
---|
|
Best Regards, -- Keysanger ( what?) 16:11, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
Extended content
|
---|
|
These sources are more than enough to demonstrate that Daza's decree was not a true declaration of war. Not only does Daza explain this, as sourced by Sater, but the information is backed up by historical analysis. On the other hand, the sources presented by Keysanger are merely textual parrots, merely stating that Bolivia declared war without any further analysis. It's important to mention that the article does present Chile's view about Daza's decree. However, Keysanger is trying to use the WP concept of "Undue weight" to present Chile's POV as supreme and leave the analysis of Daza's decree (including Daza's own opinion about his decree) as "minority views".-- MarshalN20 | Talk 18:49, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
Hi Marshal, I am inclined to agree that Keysanger has made a point here, and that it is probably too strong to have Wikipedia assert as a fact that, "under international law at that time neither side had actually declared war". That is an absolute statement. I think the statement should be attributed, i.e. "According to X, ...". When Wikipedia's voice makes an absolute statement, it should be a statement of an uncontested fact. Also I am finding it confusing that Keysanger's sources do indeed say that Bolivia declared war - not just that Chile thought Bolivia declared war. If these historians are wrong, the article doesn't help me to understand why they are wrong. I am happy to be persuaded otherwise? Also (a suggestion to both Keysanger & MarshalN20), having multiple threads open discussing multiple disputes at the same time is probably not ideal. Should we try to resolve this point first? Alex Harvey ( talk) 15:47, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
How about this for statement: "After the Chilean invasion of Antofagasta, Hilarión Daza made a presidential decree which demanded the expulsion of Chileans and the nationalizing of Chilean private property. Due to its aggressiveness, the Chilean government understood the decree as a declaration of war. However, although both nations had already taken aggressive actions, in reality no war had yet been formally declared from either side of the conflict."--[|!*//MarshalN20\\*!|] (talk) 00:56, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
This discussion continues in Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard#War_of_the_Pacific_:_Bolivian_declaration_of_war. -- Keysanger ( what?) 23:39, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
::::::At 18:49, on 22 July 2011 (UTC)MarshalN20 wrote
[25]:
Two weeks after the Chilean occupation of Antofagasta, he declared that Chile had imposed "a state of war" on Bolivia. Apparently this decree did not constitute a formal declaration of belligerence, which he announced on 18 March."
Two weeks after the Chilean occupation of Antofagasta, he declared that had imposed "a state of war" on Bolivia. Apparently this decree did not constitute a formal declaration of belligerence, which he announced on 18 March.
I revisited a link of former discussions and found:
Under [28], page 69 and 70, a book of the Iowa University which includes official statements of the governments, letters , etc of that time.
In page 69 and 70 the book, under the title "N°28. Bolivian War Circular, March 31, 1879" states following:
There can't be any doubt that the British government was informed about the Bolivian declaration of war. Also the Chilean governmaent understand the Bolivian declaration of war as a declaration of war (see Gonzalo Bulnes).
Best Regards, -- Keysanger ( what?) 18:53, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
La Paz did not supinely accept the loss of its seacoast: some eight to ten thousand of its residents massed in one of the capital's main plazas demanding weapons so they could expel the Chilean filibusters who had seized their coast. In truth, these enthusiastic but utterly unprepared volunteers could do nothing. Even President Hilarion Daza had to limit himself to symbolic gestures: two weeks after the Chilean occupation of Antofagasta, he declared that Chile had imposed "a state of war" on Bolivia. Apparently this decree did not constitute a formal declaration of belligerence, which he announced on 18 March. Only on 5 April did Santiago reciprocate, plunging South America's west coast into what became known as the War of the Pacific, a conflict which lasted until 1884.
Sater wrote more than one book about this theme, he is a profesor of Latin American History in the USA and probably one of the best informed person in the world about the War of the Pacific, so I cited him as often as needed. I don't understand you, Alex, why do you find unfair and tricky to use Sater three times, one from page 28 and another from page 39 of "Andean Tragedy" and other from page 9 of "Chile and the War of the Pacific". Yourself have problems to understand the first citation of Sater (page 28), that I cited wrong, then you can use the second (page 39) and the thrird ones (page 9) to see that Sater without any doubt asserts that there was a Bolivian declaration of war. Keysanger, the bottom line is I did not think you intended to deceive here, and I said the same I think to Marshal. It gave me the impression that 15 historians supported your view whereas it turned out to be 12. In retrospect I can see there may have been other reasons for you to emphasise Sater so sorry about that. Alex Harvey ( talk) 13:21, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
Sater's sentence: "Two weeks after the Chilean occupation of Antofagasta, he declared that Chile had imposed "a state of war" on Bolivia. Apparently this decree did not constitute a formal declaration of belligerence, which he announced on 18 March." is for me very clear.
The word Apparently in Sater's sentence means "for some persons" and to avoid any ambiguity he says at the end "which he announced on 18 March". We remember that the Chilean occupation of Antofagasta occured on 14 February, so the first "declaration" was two weeks later, we say end of February or begin March. The second declaration was also on 18 March.
If MarshallN20 still has problems with the first citation of Sater, then he should use the second one from a second book and the third one from a third book. I don't see there ANY problem in Sater's stance.
It doesn't matter whether the author of the NYT is a Chinese or a Canadian, it is matter only that it is published by the NYT one of the most consulted newspapers of the world opposite to MarshallN20 "La Razón".-- Keysanger ( what?) 11:19, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
I repeat. If you have any doubt about Sater's opinion in the first citation, what do you think of the second or the third?. -- Keysanger ( what?) 11:19, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
Many of the sources presented by Keysanger throw dates randomly, and others simply don't even bother to mention them. Daza's decree was made on March 1st (this is an established fact), and yet many of Keysanger's sources say that it was on March 18, February 14, and March 14. Some sources don't even provide a date. Considering these sources provide erroneous dates, I consider their usage as reference to "Daza's declaration of war" as incorrect.-- MarshalN20 | Talk 23:12, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
Alright, this took a while and hopefully it will be something everyone can agree with to end this part of the discussion. I used Keysanger's sources from the list which mentioned the March 1 decree as a declaration of war, and did not use those which failed to mention it (i.e., those sources that simply stated, "Bolivia declared war", without explaining when or how). I ended up presenting 3 points of view: The first is that of the pro-war group; the second is the anti-war group; the last is the don't-care group (which don't attribute anything important to the March 1st decree). It needs better source formatting, but I'm sure that's not a problem since the material is cited with enough information. Without further words, here it is:
Daza's decree is a controversial subject in the history of the conflict. One side of the historical analysis affirms that the decree signifies a Bolivian declaration of war against Chile. [1] [2] [3] [4] Another side argues that the decree was not a declaration of war, but rather it was a security measure taken in response to the Chilean invasion of Antofagasta. This side further argues that Chile purposely interpreted Daza's decree as a declaration of war in order to justify their invasion of Bolivia. [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] Other historians completely avoid mentioning Daza's decree, and instead focus on other causes for the start of the conflict. [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] Bolivian historian Ramiro Prudencio Lizon states that "Daza had no interest in declaring war, because he knew that Bolivia was not in conditions to affront a campaign against a country much superior in belligerent resources and which counted with a powerful navy." [16] On March 12, Richard Gibbs, United States Ambassador to Peru, wrote a letter to his government explaining that neither Bolivia or Chile had declared war up to that point. [17] According to American historian William F. Sater, on March 18, Hilarión Daza clarified that his March 1st decree was not a declaration of war. [18]
Any suggestions are welcome.-- MarshalN20 | Talk 00:43, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
Alright. Here is another attempt at consensus:
Daza's decree is a controversial subject in the history of the conflict. The Chilean government interpreted the decree as a declaration of war, and the majority of historians have since then debated the legitimacy of Chile's claim. Historians Erick Goldstein, Hans-Joachim König, and Philipp Reclam are among those who claim that Daza's March 1st decree is a war declaration retaliating to Chile's invasion of Antofagasta. [19] [20] On the other hand, historians Tommaso Caivano, William Sater, and Valentin Abecia Baldivieso are among those who claim that Daza's March 1st decree was only a security measure given Chile's armed invasion and not a declaration of war. [21] [22] [23] Historian Ramiro Prudencion Lizon explains that Chile required an official declaration of war to advance further north into the Bolivian coast; [24] which is why, according to historians Mariano Felipe Paz Soldán and Atilio Sivirichi, Chile purposely distorted Daza's decree to justify its occupation of Bolivia's coast. [25] [26] Nonetheless, a small number of historians, including William Sater and Robert Scheina, believe that Bolivia declared war on March 18; [27] [28] and another group believes the war declaration came in March 14. [29] [30]
I am not sure if it would be good to include the information explaining that the March 18th information is, according to Lavalle (primary source) and Basadre (secondary source), the copy of the March 1st declaration which circulated Chile. As always, any help is appreciated.-- MarshalN20 | Talk 01:31, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
It is time to recapitulate.
I see that MarshalN20 is running out of sources:
Extended content
|
---|
|
MarshalN20 could bring 2 Bolivians and 1 Peruvian historians for this new theory and two sources for the Bolivian declaration of war (Sater and William Spence Robertson).
What have we to verify the Bolivian declaration of war:
Extended content
|
---|
|
Please, read carefuly my sources again, I added 3 new sources (Besadre, Farcau, Lavalle/Negri) and compacted Sater's 2 citations of one book to only one source. What can we say about the sources that sustain the Bolivian declaration of war:
And what to do with the 4 historians that asserts there was no declaration at all?. It depends. It depends of how much original research we want to do. I refuse to participate in a "WP research group War of the Pacific". It would be very interesting but I don't have so much time and we could not publish the results in the English Wikipedia. Anyway, they are a footnote in the history and that should remain also in Wikipedia.
I abstain to made a concrete proposal, my English is still not perfect. Best regards, -- Keysanger ( what?) 11:23, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
Okay... a few things... definitely Marshal should remove primary sources from his list. Keysanger, your sources (viii) and (x) are the same source. And I don't regard Sater as a reliable source while he appears to make contradictory statements. Are you able to declare the nationality of all your sources just as you've revealed the nationality of Marshal's?
Alex Harvey (
talk) 12:59, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
Alex, Bolivia did'nt declare war to Chile in March 18, 1879; I don't have any single reference of such statement in any other book apart from Sater, in fact the only document taken by the Chilean Goverment as a "Declaration of War is the Decree of March 1, 1879, and this document says (in Spanish):
Considerando:
Que el Gobierno de Chile ha invadido de hecho el territorio nacional, sin observar las reglas del Derecho de Gentes, ni las prácticas de los pueblos civilizados, expulsando violentamente a las autoridades y nacionales recidentes en el departamento de Cobija.
Que el Gobierno de Bolivia se encuentra en el deber de dictar medidas enérgicas que la gravedad de la situación, sin apartarse, no obstante, de los principios que consagra el derecho público de las naciones.
Decreto:
Articulo 1° Queda cortado todo comercio y comunicación con la República de Chile mientras dure la guerra que ha promovido a Bolivia.
Articulo 2° Los chilenos residentes en el territorio boliviano serán obligados a desocuparlo en el término de dies dias, contados desde la notificación que se les hiciere por la autoridad pública nacional, pudiendo llevar consigo sus papeles privados, su equipaje y articulos de menaje mayor.
Articulo 3° La expulsión ordenada en el artículo anterior sólo podrá ser suspendida en el término que fuera estrictamente indispensable por causa de enfermedad u otro impedimento grave, a juicio de la autoridad.
Articulo 4° Se procederá por las autoridades respectivas al embargo bélico de las propiedades muebles e inmuebles pertenecientes a los súbditos chilenos, en el territorio de la República, con excepción de los objetos designados en el articulo 2°.
Las empresas mineras pertenecientes a chilenos o en las que hubiere accionistas de esa nacionalidad podrán continuar su giro, a cargo de un administrador nombrado por la autoridad o con la intervención de un representante del fisco, según creyera aquélla más conveniente.
Articulo 5° Los productos netos de las empresas mineras perteneciente a chilenos o a las acciones correspondientes a los mismos, serán empozados en el tesoro nacional.
Articulo 6° El embargo mandado por este Decreto se convertirá en consfiscación definitiva, siempre que el género de las hostilidades que ejerzan las fuerzas chilenas requieran una retaliación enérgica de parte de Bolivia.
Articulo 7° Se desconoce toda transferencia de intereses chilenos, hecha con posterioridad al 8 de noviembre último, en cuya fecha el Gobierno chileno declaró nulo el tratado de 1874, debiendo considerarse como simulado todo contrato que se hubiere pactado a este respecto.
El ministro de Gobierno y Relaciones Exteriores cuidará de la publicación y ejecución de este Decreto.
As you can read, the text doesn't include the sentence: "La Républica de Bolivia declara la guerra a Chile", in fact, the decree establish than its instructions are only valid until the state-of-war persist between Bolivia and Chile, and this measures can be reverted or become permanent in function to the escalation of the hostilities, clearly initiated by the Chilean Republic. This decree cannot be interpretated as a "war declaration", that is the Chilean version of the fact since the war and here in Wikipedia we have the duty to show the fact as they really was, not sustain a lie initiated more than a hundred years ago. Greetings. -- Cloudaoc ( talk) 15:39, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
Extended content
|
---|
|
Marshal et al., Keysanger has written above There were 2 Bolivian declarations, the first one was on 1st March and the second on 14th or 18th March 1879. Why? The 14th March is the date of the arrival to Lima and 18th March the date of the arrival to Santiago? We don't know. So even if the 1st March was less than a formal declaration of war historians seem to agree that there was a formal declaration on 14th or 18th. It's not obvious to me why there would be confusion but there obviously is. For the most part I think Keysanger's analysis of the sources presented so far is fair and accurate. On primary sources, it is true that we are allowed to use them to some extent but the issue at hand here is what the reliable secondary sources say. When determining appropriate
weight we only care about the weight as found in reliable secondary sources.
Alex Harvey (
talk) 01:48, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
We have the same problem like editors of the death of Salvador Allende, John Kennedy, Osama Bin Laden, etc. There is little or no evidence about the circumtances of their death but all serious historians say they are death. There is no reason to say, "John Kennedy is probably alive because we don't know how many snipers killed him". In the same way, there is no reason to write "Author XYZ says Kennedy is death". He is death, all authors say it, they differ in the circumtances of his death.
So lets us say what we know, and abstain to make a digression.
I propound for:
"Lede":
for "Crisis":
Best regrads, -- Keysanger ( what?) 13:39, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
I completely disagree with your proposal. You're trying to place this subject on the same level of a conspiracy theory or myth, and that is completely erroneous. Both you and I have provided several sources which discuss the matter and provide their explanations for the events which took place at this time. What has been demonstrated from these sources is that no consensus exists among historians as to whether Bolivia declared war on March 1 or not, and that a few historians (minority per Undue Weight) attribute war to the 14th or 18th. The purpose of Wikipedia is to present all points of view in order to achieve NPOV.
What we know so far:
Based on these sources, I propose the following paragraph for the Crisis section:
Daza's decree is a controversial subject in the history of the conflict. Chile interpreted the decree as a declaration of war, [31] [32] a decision whose legitimacy has faced considerable debate in the historical community. Those in favor of Chile's interpretation, including Erick Goldstein and Hans-Joachim König, explain that decree was a war declaration retaliating Chile's invasion of Bolivian territory. [33] [34] This group suggests that Bolivia's declaration of war tried to prevent Chile from receiving further military equipment, and, according to Jorge Basadre, also tried to prevent Peru's diplomatic mediation from succeeding. [35] Those against Chile's interpretation, including Tommaso Caivano and William F. Sater, explain that the decree was nothing more than a security measure given Chile's military invasion. [36] [37] [38] This group suggests that Chile, in need of a justification for its occupation of Bolivia, [39] purposely distorted Daza's decree. [40] [41] Nonetheless, some historians provide different perspectives as to when Bolivia possibly declared war. According to Bruce Farcau, Bolivia's legislature authorized a formal declaration of war on February 27. Farcau, along with Bruce St. John and Martin Sicker, claim that Bolivia then declared war on March 14. [42] [43] [44] According to William Sater and Robert Scheina, Bolivia's declaration of war took place on March 18, [45] [46] but José Antonio de Lavalle (Peruvian senior diplomat and envoy to Chile) writes in his diary that March 18 is the date when Daza's March 1 decree was made public in Chile; [47] a story corroborated by historian Jorge Basadre. [48]
This proposal includes all points of view in the discussion, directly addresses the issue, and lets the reader understand the controversial nature of the situation. No "Bolivia declared war and that's that" kind of idea which Keysanger seems to support.-- MarshalN20 | Talk 16:59, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
Extended content
|
---|
|
It seems most sources agree that Bolivia declared war in March. The problem is that, for every single date, a contrasting explanation is provided:
I am willing to write another consensus proposal based on these points, but I would like to know (from Keysanger mainly) whether he agrees or disagrees with these points. Also, any suggestions as to how this may be included are welcome.-- MarshalN20 | Talk 13:10, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
I'll try, although I suspect there are many fine details of the history I haven't understood:
On February 27 the Bolivian legislature issued the authorization for a declaration of war, although it was not immediately announced. Instead, on March 1, Daza issued a decree which prohibited all commerce and communications with Chile "while the state-of-war provoked upon Bolivia lasts", provided Chileans ten days to leave Bolivian territory unless gravely ill or handicapped, embargoed Chilean furniture, property, and mining produce, allowed Chilean mining companies to continue operating under a government-appointed administrator, and provided all embargoes as temporary "unless the hostilities exercised by Chilean forces requires an energetic retaliation from Bolivia". Then on March 14, Daza announced to representatives of foreign powers that a state of war now existed between herself and Chile. Bolivia then called on Peru to activate the alliance treaty, arguing that the Chile's invasion constituted a casus foederis. Chile, meanwhile, called on Peru to remain neutral.
I don't see any need to say anything else about the March 1 decree. Alex Harvey ( talk) 12:27, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
Best regards, Keysanger ( what?) 10:55, 5 August 2011 (UTC)On February 27 was issued in La Paz the general war manifesto with the authorization for a declaration of war, although it was not immediately announced. Instead, on March 1, Daza issued a decree which prohibited all commerce and communications with Chile "while the state-of-war provoked upon Bolivia lasts", provided Chileans ten days to leave Bolivian territory unless gravely ill or handicapped, embargoed Chilean furniture, property, and mining produce, allowed Chilean mining companies to continue operating under a government-appointed administrator, and provided all embargoes as temporary "unless the hostilities exercised by Chilean forces requires an energetic retaliation from Bolivia". Then on March 14, Bolivia announced to representatives of foreign powers that a state of war now existed between herself and Chile and called on Peru to activate the alliance treaty, arguing that the Chile's invasion constituted a "casus foederis". Chile, meanwhile, called on Peru to remain neutral.
On February 27, Daza issued a proclamation which informed Bolivians about the invasion and called for patriotic support against the invaders. Later, on March 1, he issued a decree which prohibited all commerce and communications with Chile "while the state-of-war provoked upon Bolivia lasts", provided Chileans ten days to leave Bolivian territory unless gravely ill or handicapped, embargoed Chilean furniture, property, and mining produce, allowed Chilean mining companies to continue operating under a government-appointed administrator, and provided all embargoes as temporary "unless the hostilities exercised by Chilean forces requires an energetic retaliation from Bolivia". Then on March 14, Bolivia announced to representatives of foreign powers in Lima that a state of war now existed between herself and Chile; and called on Peru to activate the alliance treaty, arguing that the Chile's invasion constituted a casus foederis.
I propouse:
On February 27 the Bolivian legislature issued the authorization for a declaration of war, although it was not immediately announced. Instead, on March 1, Daza issued a declaration of war on Chile and prohibited all commerce and communications with Chile "while the state-of-war provoked upon Bolivia lasts", provided Chileans ten days to leave Bolivian territory unless gravely ill or handicapped, embargoed Chilean furniture, property, and mining produce, allowed Chilean mining companies to continue operating under a government-appointed administrator, and provided all embargoes as temporary "unless the hostilities exercised by Chilean forces requires an energetic retaliation from Bolivia". Then on March 14, Bolivia announced to representatives of foreign powers in Lima that a state of war now existed between herself and Chile. Bolivia then called on Peru to activate the alliance treaty, arguing that the Chile's invasion constituted a casus foederis. Chile, meanwhile, called on Peru to remain neutral.
--Best regards, Keysanger ( what?) 12:01, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
On March 1, Bolivia issued a declaration of war on Chile and prohibited all commerce and communications with Chile "while the state-of-war provoked upon Bolivia lasts", provided Chileans ten days to leave Bolivian territory unless gravely ill or handicapped, embargoed Chilean furniture, property, and mining produce, allowed Chilean mining companies to continue operating under a government-appointed administrator, and provided all embargoes as temporary "unless the hostilities exercised by Chilean forces requires an energetic retaliation from Bolivia". Then on March 14, Bolivia announced to representatives of foreign powers in Lima that a state of war now existed between herself and Chile. Bolivia then called on Peru to activate the alliance treaty, arguing that the Chile's invasion constituted a casus foederis. Chile, meanwhile, called on Peru to remain neutral. Peru refused.
News of the Chilean invasion reached Hilarión Daza on February 20, but he decided to postpone its mention until the end of ongoing carnival festitivities. On February 27, Daza made a public manifesto informing Bolivians about the invasion and calling for patriotic support. Later, on March 1, he issued a decree which prohibited all commerce and communications with Chile "while the state-of-war provoked upon Bolivia lasts", provided Chileans ten days to leave Bolivian territory unless gravely ill or handicapped, embargoed Chilean furniture, property, and mining produce, allowed Chilean mining companies to continue operating under a government-appointed administrator, and provided all embargoes as temporary "unless the hostilities exercised by Chilean forces requires an energetic retaliation from Bolivia". Then, on March 14, Bolivia announced to representatives of foreign powers in Lima that a state of war now existed between herself and Chile; and called on Peru to activate the alliance treaty, arguing that the Chile's invasion constituted a casus foederis.
On February 27, Daza issued a proclamation which informed Bolivians about the invasion and called for patriotic support against the invaders. Later,on March 1,heBolivia issued adecree whichDeclaration of war on Chile and prohibited all commerce and communications with Chile "while the state-of-war provoked upon Bolivia lasts", provided Chileans ten days to leave Bolivian territory unless gravely ill or handicapped, embargoed Chilean furniture, property, and mining produce, allowed Chilean mining companies to continue operating under a government-appointed administrator, and provided all embargoes as temporary "unless the hostilities exercised by Chilean forces requires an energetic retaliation from Bolivia". Then on March 14, Bolivia announced to representatives of foreign powers in Lima that a state of war now existed between herself and Chile; and called on Peru to activate the alliance treaty, arguing that the Chile's invasion constituted a casus foederis. Chile, meanwhile, called on Peru to remain neutral. Peru refused.
News of the Chilean invasion reached Hilarión Daza on February 20, but he decided to postpone its mention until the end of ongoing carnival festitivities. On February 27, Daza made a public manifesto informing Bolivians about the invasion and calling for patriotic support. Later, on March 1, he issued a decree which prohibited all commerce and communications with Chile "while the state-of-war provoked upon Bolivia lasts", provided Chileans ten days to leave Bolivian territory unless gravely ill or handicapped, embargoed Chilean furniture, property, and mining produce, allowed Chilean mining companies to continue operating under a government-appointed administrator, and provided all embargoes as temporary "unless the hostilities exercised by Chilean forces requires an energetic retaliation from Bolivia". Then, on March 14, Bolivia announced to representatives of foreign powers in Lima that a state of war now existed between herself and Chile; and called on Peru to activate the alliance treaty, arguing that the Chile's invasion constituted a casus foederis.
When did Bolivia issue the declaration of war?. --Best regards, Keysanger ( what?) 17:19, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
@Alex,
Precisely that is the question, the interpretation of the decree of 1. March. WP editors must abtain of interpretations of primary sources. Cloudac and MarshalN20 would like to read the decree and say "look at there, nowhere is the word declaration!, it isn't a declaration of war!" and then they would follow "Under international law there has been never a declaration of war ...". That would be original research. Look at that:
The english Wikipedia accepts interpretations of primary sources only if they are done by secondary sources and the Lowest common denominator of the list of 20 sources is that there was a Bolivian declaration of war. We can vary the date, because there is a lot of uncertainty on account of the non-existing telegraph line to La Paz but not about the core of the message of the historians, there is no confusion: the historians interpret the decree as a declaration of war.
I propose as date "in the Middle March" or "in March". In no way should the reader be mislead to the presuption that there wasn't a Bdow.
--Best regards, Keysanger ( what?) 15:31, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
I recognize a uncertainty in my source University of Iowa because I can't find the word declaration. But there are the words Procamation of War, War Circular and General War Manifesto (pages 66, 70, 66). I think one of the three is a War declaration. May be?. --Best regards, Keysanger ( what?) 15:43, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
We have long discussed about the issue and find out that there was a Bolivian declaration of war but were astonished about the different dates authors assign to this event. There were 4 dates: 27 February, 1., 14. and 18. March 1879.
Alex and Keysanger don't have any trouble understanding the discrepancy in the dates given Boliva's lack of telegraph lines, but how have to be ordered and understand?
The 27. February is not very important because it was only an authorization for the war given by the legislature within a dictature. Only an ornamental question. Moreover 1866 (?), the Bolivian legislature had already issued a similar authorization but nothing occured.
The German book that deals in detail with the question 1.-14. February. It is Gerhard Lang's, "Boliviens Streben nach freiem Zugang zum Meer", Hamburger Gesellschaft für Völkerrecht und Auswärtige Politik, edited by Prof. Dr. Herbert Krüger, Band 6, Hamburg 1966, page 25:
Die peruanisch-chilenischen Verhandlungen waren noch im Gange. Da gab der bolivianische Sonderbevollmächtigte in Perú, Außenminister Serapio Reyes Ortiz, der den Auftrag hatte, von der peruanischen Regierung gemäß Artikel 3 des Bündnisvertrages von 1873 die Anerkennung des casus foederis zu erwirken, namens seiner Regierung dem bei der peruanischen Regierung akkreditierten diplomatischen Korps am 14. März durch Zirkularnote die vom 1. März datierte Kriegserklärung Boliviens an Chile(Fußnote 54) bekannt. Dieser ungewöhnliche Schritt, eine Kriegserklärung auf diese Weise publik zu machen, erklärt sich daraus, daß zu jener Zeit nur wenige Länder in La Paz vertreten waren und die Nachrichtenübermittlung von dort wesentlich längere Zeit benötigte als von Lima aus. Mit der rechtzeitigen Bekanntgabe der Kriegserklärung aber sollten die Auslieferung von Kriegsschiffen, die bei europäischen Werften im Auftrag gegeben worden waren, und weitere Waffenlieferungen an Chile verhindert werden. (Fußnote 54: State papers, Bd. 71, S. 926)
Translation 1:
The Peruvian-Chilean negotiations were still in progress when, on his government's behalf, the Bolivian special plenipotentiary in Peru, foreign minister Serapio Reyes Ortiz, who was commissioned to obtain the Peruvian government's recognition of casus foederis according to article 3 of the 1873 treaty of alliance, announced Bolivia's declaration of war on Chile (Footnote 54), dated March 1 by circular note, to the diplomatic Corps accredited to Peru on March 14. This unusual step, to make public a declaration of war in this fashion, can be explained by the fact that only few countries were represented in La Paz at the time, and communications from there took significantly longer than from Lima. The timely announcement of the declaration of war, however, was supposed to impede the deployment of war ships that had been commissioned to European shipyards, as well as the delivery of weapons to Chile.
Translation 2:
The Peruvian-Chilean negotiations were still in progress. At that time, on his government's behalf, the Bolivian special plenipotentiary in Peru, foreign minister Serapio Reyes Ortiz announced Bolivia's declaration of war on Chile (Footnote 54), dated March 1 by circular note, to the diplomatic Corps accredited to Peru on 14. March. (Reyes Ortiz had been commissioned to obtain the Peruvian government's recognition of casus foederis according to article 3 of the 1873 Treaty of Alliance.) The unusual step of making public a declaration of war in this fashion can be explained by the fact that only few countries were represented in La Paz at the time, and communications from there took significantly longer than from Lima. The timely announcement of the declaration of war, however, was meant to impede the deployment of warships that had been commissioned from European shipyards, as well as the delivery of weapons to Chile.
The information given in the paragraph explains the relationship between the declaration of war issued by Daza in La Paz on 1. March and the anouncement of Bolivian foreign minister Reyes in Lima on 14. March. Lacking enough international resonance from the declaration in La Paz they declared it also in Lima in order to stop delivery of weapons to Chile.
About the 18. March, Jose Lavalle's report ("Mi mision en Chile en 1879", Edición, prólogo y notas por Félix Denegri Luna , Lima, Peru, 1979, Instituto de Estudios Histórico-Marítimos del Perú.) states that (page 84):
(The text of envoy Lavalle is a primary source)
Jorge Besadre, the wellknown Peruvian historician states that same in "Historia de la Republica, La guerra con Chile",
That is, on 18 March was published in Chilean official newspaper the Bolivian declaration of war. For understandable reasons some authors skips to repeat the date of the 1. March or the date of the 14 March or the date of the 18. March.
My proposal for the article is:
In view of the fact that the 22 given sources support the text of the proposal, there should be no reason to bring the case to the RfC, what in any case can be done if Alex or others insists.
--Best regards, Keysanger ( what?) 12:50, 19 August 2011 (UTC)