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.

Image:War of the Pacific LOCK map.png The region ocupied by chileans in Tacna is incorrect. The limit was Sama river.

Image:Gdp.ops.en.400.png This map is incorrect. Arica, Iquique and Pisagua were peruvian towns until 1884. -- Arafael ( talk) 13:20, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

I have looked at ohter maps and the error you speak about can not be so big. This is currently the best map of the territorial changes due to the war. The second map is aimed to show the chilean campaigns, not territorial changes that is unimportant for what the map is trying to show, and it probably because of that that the map does not show a borderline between Chile and Bolivia. Iquique and Pisagua were legally Peruvian until 1884 but Peru lost the facto controll of them earlier in the war. Dentren | ^Talk 18:12, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Why you say that "This is currently the best map of the territorial changes due to the war.". Read here [1] [2] about that map: Boundary representation not necessarily authoritative. The region ocupied by chileans in Tacna is incorrect. The limit was Sama river. Article 3: The territory of the provinces of Tacna and Arica, bordering to the north by the river Sama...Ancón treaty. What is wrong about this map? [3]

Arafael ( talk) 16:07, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

• 1. Bolivian version: Read in [4] page 8. como lo disponía la Constitución boliviana and [5] page 30: como disponía la Constitución de 1871
• 2. Strength: The authors of three countries give different numbers. the Chilean authors equals forces, the Peruvians place smaller forces. Is better write without numbers.
• 3. Location. Pacific coast of Peru and Bolivia. Precision.
• 4. Map Incorrect. The region ocupied by chileans in Tacna is incorrect. The limit was Sama river. Article 3: The territory of the provinces of Tacna and Arica, bordering to the north by the river Sama...Ancón treaty 1884
• 5. Map incorrect. Arica, Iquique and Pisagua were peruvian towns until 1884.

Arafael ( talk) 17:52, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

I do not quite understand what you mean but let’s see.

1) I don’t know what you mean so please elaborate on that.

2)If there’s different estimates for the strength of each army, then, we should reference and include all approximations. And no, it’s not better without the figures. It’s better to have discrepancies and approximates (with references) than nothing at all. This is common practice in all war-related articles.

3) There’s no such a thing as coast of Bolivia. South pacific coast of South America or Coast of South America is more generic and remains unchanged despite the outcome of the war.

4) As far as I know, The Chilean army occupied Peru way past Tacna for several years. But I’ll be more than happy to help with the correction, as long as you can present a source for that.

5)Incorrect. The Treaty of Treaty of Ancón was signed on October 1883, by which Peru's Tarapacá province was ceded to the victor; on its part, Bolivia was forced to cede Antofagasta.

Likeminas ( talk) 18:28, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

1. Chilean version said 1874 treaty was broken. NPOV. Bolivian version said the treaty of 1874 only favored to companies with valid contracts, and the contract of 1873 with Antofagasta Nitrate & Railway Company wasn't approved in agreement with Bolivian Constitution of 1871. 1874 Treaty wasn't broken. Bolivia decided to approve the contract if they pay 10% of taxes.
2. It's a summary. All numbers need an article or a section in this article.
3. In 1879, until 1904, there was a Bolivian Coast, the war was there (or the war was in chilean coast?). "South pacific coast of South America" could means "Santiago" or "Guayaquil". I propose "Peruvian and Bolivian coast in South America".
4. Tacna-Chile [6] map is incorrect, the light red region is greater than the real region. [7]. This Tacna map is Tacna-Peru not Tacna-Chile. The limit was Sama river. Article 3: The territory of the provinces of Tacna and Arica, bordering to the north by the river Sama...Ancón treaty.
5. This map borders [8] are incorrect. Arica, Iquique and Pisagua were peruvian towns until 1883/1884 (Signed in 1883. In March 11th 1884 the Treaty of Ancon was promulgated in Lima). The map shows Campaign of Tarapaca in Chile (1879 it was in Peru). Ocupattion of Antofagasta in Chile (1879 it was in Bolivia). limits are incorrect.

Arafael ( talk) 19:28, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

1)Yes, as per the Bolivian claim, the contract was not valid since it had not been approved by the Bolivian congress. If you want, you can add that line. But please avoid using weasel wording.

2)Again. All figures need to be included despite discrepancies, as long as they’re referenced.

3)Adding “Bolivian Coast” is not only inaccurate but also somewhat weasel. I doubt anybody would think we’re referring to the coast of Santiago (by the way there’s no sea there) when they have a huge picture depicting the geographical location.

4)What do understand by “occupied territories”? -Is Lima north of Tacna? Was Lima, thus, Tacna occupied for more than 3 yrs by the Chilean army?

5)The map is clearly showing the present-day borders. But that's not the purpose of the map. That map is intented to present a rough illustration of major military developments. Again, is not intended to show any border shifts. Likeminas ( talk) 20:34, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

1. Agree
2. Agree, but in a new section (or other artcile) not in Warbox.
3. "South pacific coast of South America" could means "Chile" or "Ecuador". The war wasn't there. Antofagasta wasnot in the Bolivian coast? Angamos Combat was in Bolivia not in Chile. Why is inaccurate?
4. It is incorrect. { { legend|#e23d41|occupied by Chile until 1929. } }. The limit of Tacna in that map is incorrect. limit was Sama River. What is wrong in this map? [9]. Read here [10] Boundary representation not necessarily authoritative
5. Here it seems that the Arica battle was in Chile. It was in Peru. It is inaccurate and show peruvians as invaders.

Arafael ( talk) 21:06, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

2)Most war-related articles (if not all) have the army strength figures right there in the box. This is standard practice. I suggest we leave them in the box and if you like we could add a small mention of them within the article.

3) If we were to say Coast of Bolivia or Coast of Chile; we would arbitrarily have to choose between a point in time of what used to be Bolivian territory and what it is now Chilean. So you say, we should call it what it used to be before the war. But why not after????? Being this a rather touchy and delicate subject, I personally believe we should use a more generic name that doesn’t necessarily gives any undue weight to either side. Here I suggest we used something generic such as the Geographic parallels.

4)Fine. We could use that map.

5) Are you looking at the same map I’m looking? [11]

Likeminas ( talk) 16:55, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

2)Ok, but need armaments and other things.

3)I disagree. The war was between 1879-1883, that's the time. I propose a year note. "Peru (1879-1883) and Bolivia coast (1879) in South America".

4)Ok.

5)Yes I've updated the map in commons whith limits until 1883.

Arafael ( talk) 17:55, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

3)Let’s just leave that as it is. It’s very unlikely that somebody will confuse that region, especially, when the names of the countries involved are right there in the map.

Likeminas ( talk) 18:54, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

3)"Peru (1879-1883) and Bolivia (1879) in South America" whitout "coast". The war wasn't in Chile. Arafael ( talk) 19:37, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

I’m inclined for a location name that was not affected by the territorial changes of the war. Geographical coordinates is definitely one.

But once again, I would just leave it as it is. It’s very self-explanatory for anyone with basic geographical knowledge. Now if you insist on giving it a name, at least, use the names of the regions, Tarapaca and Antofagasta, repesctively. Likeminas ( talk) 21:09, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

6) Please read here [12] tax only affects one company.

3) Read in spanish wikipedia : "Coast of Bolivia; Coast and highlands of Peru in South America".

Review other wars [13] [14] with original location names.

Arafael ( talk) 13:35, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

6) Got it. it's good that you noticed and fixed it.

3)Ok I did check several war-related articles and most name just the countries. You want to add more to the obvious? Go ahead and put the names of Peru and Bolivia. I have no intention of keep arguing about a minor thing over and over, but what's wrong with naming the location Tarapaca and Antofagasta Regions?

Likeminas ( talk) 15:03, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

3) Agree. Antofagasta is the current name. In 1879 it was "Litoral Department" with three towns: Antofagasta, Cobija and Mejillones. The war was not only in Tarapaca and Antofagasta. The list could be long.

7) Please review dates. Your change is incorrect.

• 1865-1870. Mariano Melgarejo, president of Bolivia.
• 1871. Mariano Melgarejo died.
• 1872. Congress declared concessions null. Please read, page 23: [15]
• 1873. Contract between the Nitrate Company with the Bolivian government, without Congress approval.
• 1878. Congress ratified the contract as required by the Bolivian Constitution of 1871.

Arafael ( talk) 17:40, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

3)Here we go again. Yes the list could be long, but the main battle fields were those two regions. As I said, if you want to add more to something already pretty evident then do so.

7) Technically is not incorrect. But I do see where one might get confused. I will fix it.

Likeminas ( talk) 18:39, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

As you wrote in [16] "A National Constituent Assembly would approve the contract only if the company would pay a 10 cents tax per quintal". Is the same contract. Arafael ( talk) 13:42, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Original contract = No tax; Revised contract by congress = 10c tax...

See the difference? Certainly not the same contract.

But ok, I won't make an issue out of it.

Likeminas ( talk) 16:11, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

The dry climate of the area... wich area? Arafael ( talk) 21:35, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Please read http://es.wikisource.org/wiki/Declaraci%C3%B3n_de_ruptura_de_comunicaciones_con_Chile_y_embargo_de_propiedades_de_s%C3%BAbditos_chilenos where the document says that Bolivia declares war to Chile?

Arafael ( talk) 18:37, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Did you happen to notice that big and well-marked reference that I added after that phrase? Or you just ignored it? This is a Fact: Bolivia declared war on Chile on March 1 of 1879. Chile followed suit and declared war on both Peru and Bolivia on April of the same year. Here's another source stating the same thing. http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/war-of-the-pacific.htm

Likeminas ( talk) 20:11, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm linking the decree signed by Daza on March 1 of 1879, and the document don't says that Bolivia declares war to Chile. You're linking a web page without reliable author.

Arafael ( talk) 13:16, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Let me be clear on this: I'm not using that wiki-document to support the fact that Bilovia declared war on Chile.

While the decree stating the rupture of relations between the two countries is fine, and can probably go somewhere else, the fact remains the same. Bolivia declares war on Chile on March, and Chile does the same on April of the same year.

Globalsecurity.org is by all means a reliable source. Please refer to WP:V to learn more about the Wikipedia's policy on reliability.

Both sources provided are reliable.

What I'm adding is a fact and I don't know why you're even trying to dispute it when it's very easy to find more sources backing it up. Here's a different one; [17]

And another one;

[18]

Also why are you constantly deleting the map showing the pre-war boundaries? Is there any good reason?

By the way, it's also a fact that the Huascar surrendered (albeit damaged)after it was cornered by the Chilean fleet.

Likeminas ( talk) 13:41, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Please read http://es.wikisource.org/wiki/Declaraci%C3%B3n_de_ruptura_de_comunicaciones_con_Chile_y_embargo_de_propiedades_de_s%C3%BAbditos_chilenos where the document says that Bolivia declares war to Chile? Please read http://www.correodelsur.net/2004/0214/opinion2.shtml. Your "fact" is not neutral. The map is repetead three times. Huascar did not surrendered. Arafael ( talk) 18:55, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm not too keen to repeat myself, especially when I think I'm being crystal clear. But let me say this one more time. Hopefully this time it sinks in.
Who says that I'm using ( http://es.wikisource.org/wiki/Declaraci%C3%) to claim that Bolivia declared war on Chile? Where do I say that? Please understand, that the source(s) I'm using [19] [20] is not the one you're talking about.
I tried to open the link you posted but to no available. Please post a working link from a realible website if you're going to dispute the neutrality of my sources. Likeminas ( talk) 20:11, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Read [21] and [22]

Read [23]

Bolivia didn't declare a war.

May 1st 1879 decret: [24] where the May 1st 1879 decret says that Bolivia declares war on Chile?

Arafael ( talk) 22:20, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

May 1st 1879 decret: [25] where the May 1st 1879 decret says that Bolivia declares war on Chile? This is just silly. I said several times I'm not using that reference. Why do you keep repeating yourself?

For Bolivia declaring war on Chile please read: [26] (Chilean source) and international, thus, neutral sources [ [27], [28], [29] and [30].

From another online encyclopedia: http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761565235/war_of_the_pacific.html

Books: [31] [32] and [33]

And that was just a quick search, there's plenty more sources corroborating this information.

As per the Huascar surrendering or not here's a source stating just that [34] and here's a book stating the same [35] but I guess can work out other type of wording such as: The Huascar was, then, taken over or something of that kind.

With respect to the maps. I will restore it, as it a different map. And I will revert your edit in regards to the occupation of Lima, since, that's only a city of the many occupied. Peru as whole is more accurate.

Likeminas ( talk) 16:04, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

First. "Bolivia declared war on March 1". Which bolivian May 1st decree declared war on Chile? Do you have the text of that decree?

This is the March 1st bolivian decree. [36]

It could be: "On March 1st, Bolivia broke all relations with Chile and seized chilean properties. It was interpreted by the Chilean government as a declaration of war."

Agree with: "The Huascar was, then, taken over".

Arafael ( talk) 13:24, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

No, sorry. I don't have a decree. But I got plenty of sources backing up that information. And as per Wikipedia WP:V that should be enough.

I hope more people can also weight in this discussion, so that, we can remove the POV banner, as I think neutrality has not been compromised.

I will change the wording regarding the Huascar, since we seem to agree on that point.

Likeminas ( talk) 19:25, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Please read these version about March 1st Bolvian decree [37] and [38].

On March 1st, Bolivia broke all relations with Chile and seized chilean properties [39]. Bolivia didn't declare war on Chile.

The current text only shows one version.

Arafael ( talk) 20:33, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

That sounds like a broken disc repeating the same part of the song over and over.

Did I mention I WAS NOT using that source to back up the claim that Bolivia declares war on Chile?

I think I did.

I will file a request for comment from an impartial party, since we seem to be getting nowhere here.

Likeminas ( talk) 20:44, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

As it seems to me, this is the most correct information that I have found regarding this matter: [40]. In summary, it basically states that (in order):

• Chile occupied Bolivian territory.
• Bolivia declares war on Chile.
• Peru tries to mediate the conflict peacefully.
• Chile does not want to peacefully resolve the problem.
• Chile declares war on Bolivia and Peru. Note that Peru does not declare war on Chile until after Chile declared war on it first.-- [|!*//MarshalN20\\*!|] ( talk) 05:40, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

However, from Arafael's perspective, his statement can indeed be correct. Bolivian decrees by no means actually declare a war on Chile, at least not the ones that Arafael has shown. Additionally, why would Peru attempt to "mediate" a conflict if war had already been declared? It seems to me that there is something more to this story than what "neutral" sources that do not understand the subject might say. I think that Arafael might really be on to something when he states that Chile might have misunderstood Bolivia's decree as a declaration of war, even though it really was not. However, these are just ideas that could and should be considered personal research since the "neutral" sources claim otherwise. Let me end this small statement of mine by pointing out that all three sides of the conflict are generally taught incorrect information regarding the true events that took place prior to the War of the Pacific. One of the most clear examples that comes to my mind is that in Chile people are generally taught that Peru's and Bolivia's alliance was aggressive and directed towards Chile; when the case comes to show that in fact it was a defensive alliance that was not aimed at Chile but rather at all the neighbors of both nations (such as Ecuador for Peru).-- [|!*//MarshalN20\\*!|] ( talk) 05:40, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Check out these books about the Bolivian decree [41] of March 1:

Mariano Felipe Paz Soldan - Peruvian [42] Luis Peñaloza Cordero - Bolivian [43] Atilio Sivirichi - Peruvian [44] Juan Pereira Fiorilo - Bolivian [45] Alejandro Soto Cárdenas - Chilean [46] Casto Rojas - Bolivian [47] Alcira Cardona Torrico - Bolivian [48]. Arafael ( talk) 13:39, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Upon consideration of the information provided by Arafael, I agree with him that Bolivia did not declare war on Chile on May 1st. Unless other documents of equal credibility are presented that state otherwise, then the article should reflect that it was Chile who declared war on Bolivia and Peru first.-- [|!*//MarshalN20\\*!|] ( talk) 16:30, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

I also take down my prior statement of "personal" or "original" research. The sources provided by Arafael clearly state that Chile took Bolivia's aggresive actions as a declaration of war, but no actual declaration of war was ever made by the Bolivian government at this time.-- [|!*//MarshalN20\\*!|] ( talk) 16:31, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

The brief summary from your first comment seems to be on the right track.

Now let’s examine that second statement. I think at this point we can safely agree that the decree Arafael keeps posting is not a declaration of war. In any case, let me reiterate that I’m using that document to backup any claim.

Arafael, I believe, (please correct me if I’m wrong) is of the idea that a source to back up the claim that Bolivia declared war on Chile must be in the form of a decree.

You ask why Peru would attempt to "mediate" a conflict if war had already been declared.?

If we consider the Bolivian tax hike(1878) and the Chilean occupation of Antogafasta (Feb. 1879) as turning points of the conflict while keeping in mind that Bolivia declared war on Chile on March 1st of 1879, we're still left with an open window (of a couple of months) for the mediation scenario, before the war was officially declared.

That the Chilean government misunderstood the rupture of relations with Bolivia, for a declaration of war, is a statement that I’m sure can be sourced as the history written by individuals in the countries involved tend to give different perspectives of how things happened.

So being faced with the issue of neutrality...Should we use a Peruvian, Bolivian or Chilean source to settle this issue, despite justifiable concerns of POV for each country? or should we go with a neutral publication such as MSN Encarta or globalsecurity.org?

So far, I've listed at least 3 books, another online encyclopedia and 5 websites. Most (if not all) reliable, easily veriafiable in English (for the English Wikipedia).

Whether these sources know or understand in great depth the subject at hand, I don’t know. See, I’m not a historian. And even I was, my opinions on how well these sources understand the subject is as you correctly put it Original Reserach What we should be worrying about, is whether the sources are WP:NPOV and WP:V.

Likeminas ( talk) 16:45, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

This is a really complicated subject. I'm trying to figure out a neutral resolution to this problem without covering the truth. Although Wikipedia is supposed to include information that is NPOV, the problem is that as an encyclopedia it is often hard to distinguish between NPOV and facts even from "neutral" sources. Your comment is that we should be worrying about whether "the sources are WP:NPOV and WP:V," which is true, but I think that we should also be highly open to all ideas presented in order to figure out the truth from them.-- [|!*//MarshalN20\\*!|] ( talk) 23:57, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

In other words, even though keeping neutrality is important, the main issue is to find out which source is correct and which is incorrect. Both cannot be correct as Bolivia cannot have declared and not declared war at the same time, that is the first thing to establish. Also, it must be established that the sources provided by Arafael are verifiable and reliable sources; and he provides Peruvian, Bolivian, and Chilean opinions on the same subject (check source 62 for the Chilean opinion) and they all agree. The sources provided by Likeminas are also reliable, but this source [49] does not agree with the information set, and brings up a new information by stating that Bolivia declared war on May 18.-- [|!*//MarshalN20\\*!|] ( talk) 23:57, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

There are two ways to solve this, I think. The first is to include both ideas into the article somehow. For example, Although it is generally understood that Bolivia declared war on May 1st of YEAR, according to decrees and analysis regarding the Bolivian governmental actions of that time it is possible that Chile might have misunderstood aggresive Bolivian diplomacy as a declaration of war even though no formal war was actually declared at that time. OR Bolivian decrees and historical analysis of the governmental actions taken by Bolivia on May 1st point towards Bolivia declaring no war at all, but rather simply show that Bolivia made a series of aggressive diplomatic actions, such as the expulsion of Chileans and the taking of Chilean private property. Although it is a possiblity that Chile might have misunderstood these aggressive actions as a declaration of war, due to the aggressiveness of the Bolivian governmental decrees it is generally agreed that Bolivia declared war on May 1st. I like the second one better, but consensus would be needed. HOWEVER, I would enjoy it even more if the truth was actually uncovered! I really want to know which side is right and which is wrong, because as I stated before: Only one can be right.-- [|!*//MarshalN20\\*!|] ( talk) 23:57, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

That's right. It's either Bolivia declared war or it didn't.

I don't know what the truth is, but like most of you, I'd like to know it. And if proven wrong, I'd be the first one changing that statement.

I haven’t had the time to take a closer look at the books presented by Arafael. But from a quick glance they seem to be fine.

I must say, however, that I do have a certain reluctance when it comes to using historians from any of the three countries involved, as they usually give a somewhat skewed version of how things happened.

But even if Arafael’s sources were not affected by any bias from these historians and are, in fact, reliable sources. Wikipedia says we still should prefer and give the benefit of the doubt to the reliable English counterpart;

Because this is the English Wikipedia, editors should use English-language sources in preference to sources in other languages, assuming the availability of an English-language source of equal quality, so that readers can easily verify that the source has been used correctly. Where editors translate a direct quote, they should quote the relevant portion of the original text in a footnote or in the article. Translations published by reliable sources are preferred over translations made by Wikipedia editors.

MarshalN20, your suggestion is definitely an step forward to a consensual resolution. I wished more people would join the discussion. I have filed an RfC but so far nobody has chimed in.

PS: Since is not the neutrality of the whole article that’s being disputed, and if Arafael doesn’t mind I would like to remove the POV template and add ^{dubious – discuss} this tag to the disputed statement.

Likeminas ( talk) 14:42, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Under the Chilean Constitution [50], the president declares war (Art 82. Num 18) [51] on congressional approval (law 4 : Chile declares war on Peru)

Under the Bolivian Constitution [52] Only the congress declares war by law (Art. 89 N. 2). The Bolivian document, March 1, [53] is not a law from congress, it is a presidential decret.

Since March 13, I'm reading the article (section by section) and comparing with spanish version. In many paragraphs I've found incomplete (or noneutral) texts. Could we set "in-development" template.

Arafael ( talk) 15:34, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Non sequiteur Rafael.

Also, point out the non-neutral statements you see on the article, so we can fix them, but don't expect it to be a mirror image of the Spanish version.

Likeminas ( talk) 18:12, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Bolivian decret [54] march 1 was not a declaration of war because it was not a law from bolivian congress. According bolivian constitution of 1878 [55], in 1879 only the congress declares war by law.

About chilean declaration of war on Peru [56] it was according chilean constitution of 1833 [57]. Pinto declares war with a law from chilean congress.

Ok. But the text is too long, I'm reading now only 3rd paragraph of "Origins of the War of the Pacific".

I would rather finish this controversy in order to treat subsequent texts, because they depends on previous paragraphs

Arafael ( talk) 19:26, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Please ask yourselves these questions:

1. Is the statement Bolivia (regardless of date) declared war on Chile verifiable? 2. Are Encarta and Globalsecurity.org reliable sources of information? 3. Are they written in a neutral language? 4. Are these sources in English as Wikipedia prefers them to be for its English version?

If your answer to all these questions is yes, then, I believe we have settled this issue, unless, another set of equally reliable sources arise.

So the Spanish Wiki-sources Arafael incessantly keeps posting says Bolivia did take action against the company and Chilean interests in the region? Does that automatically contradicts the statement Bolivia declares war on Chile? If so, how exactly? Yes, you can connect certain dots such as In Bolivia only the congress declares war by law but unfortunaly, Wikipedia doesn’t work or rely on deductions. It relies on sources, simple as that.

Yes. Arafael has posted 3 links (in Spanish) of mainly Peruvian and Bolivian historians stating that Bolivia did not declare war on Chile. Well. I have also posted some links to books and websites (in English) not from Chilean, Bolivian or Peruvian historians but from rather neutral people. Which ones do you think we should decide for?

PS: To have a huge template on the article just because one sentence is being disputed makes no sense to me, when we could easily tag just that one line.

So, Arafael, please explain where you see non-neutral statements, and why you believe them to be so.

PSS: Sorry for not tabularizing my text. Likeminas ( talk) 20:46, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

1. Is the statement Bolivia (regardless of date) declared war on Chile verifiable?

1- No. There are not a declaration of war document.

2. Are Encarta and Globalsecurity.org reliable sources of information?

2- No. They are not reliable. They don't exhibit their sources.

3. Are they written in a neutral language?

3- No. Read in [58] www.globalsecurity.org: "a humiliation the Peruvians", "Daza...as brutal and incompetent as his predecessors".

4. Are these sources in English as Wikipedia prefers them to be for its English version?

4- No. Wikipedia prefers neutral point of view. And English-language sources, assuming a source of equal quality.

Arafael ( talk) 22:03, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Both of you are obviously at a stalemate, arguing from the same valid points throughout the discussion. Noting the website "GlobalSecurity.org," it states: The turning point of the war was the occupation of Lima on January 17, 1881, a humiliation the Peruvians never forgave. I would like to use this for a small example. Although the source is reliably neutral, the statements it holds are too broad on certain areas. I've studied on the matter of the occupation of Lima by Chilean forces and, according to both what I already knew and to information provided in the WP article, the situation is not as simple as "GlobalSecurity.org" makes it sound. Peru holds a deep sense of anger over the verified destruction that Chile caused to Lima and other cities/towns/villages of Peru. By not mentioning these things, it makes the website seems to make the situation appear as if Peru was just angry that Chile invaded Lima, which is indeed an insult but not one that will keep such a long-standing feud as the one that both countries have had ever since the war.-- [|!*//MarshalN20\\*!|] ( talk) 00:53, 30 April 2009 (UTC) Basically, the point I'm trying to get to is that while Global Security is reliable, it lacks the specific details that would make it a much more effective/stronger source.-- [|!*//MarshalN20\\*!|] ( talk) 00:53, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

By this point and time, I still preffer the idea of introducing both ideas into the article in a peaceful and politically correct manner. I would recommend the two of you to back out a little bit from the argument: The argument is stuck at a stalemate, like I already mentioned. What we currently need are more neutral editors to discuss the subject at hand, which I know that Likeminas has been attempting to get but has received no current reply from them other than me. The problem is that since I'm from Peru, my input into the discussion might be challenged as POV, which I hope the two of you can notice that I'm trying to avoid.-- [|!*//MarshalN20\\*!|] ( talk) 00:53, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

MarshalN20, being from Peru doesn’t make your contributions to this article automatically POV. I think you’ve been trying to mediate on this issue from a neutral stance and your input is definitely appreciated it.
It seems to me, though, that Arafael is hardening his position and is unwilling to compromise.

I should also say that whether Arafel likes it or not. A declaration of war of document is not needed to verify that Bolivia declared war on Chile.
It seems to me that Arafael is not well aware of Wikipedia’s policies. Therefore it’s highly advisable that he familiarizes himself with WP:V in order to have a well-rounded discussion here.

In any case, let me quote just quickly cite the relevant paragraph from WP:V.

The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true.

See. If Arafael was familiar with policies WP:V and WP:OR he would also know that sources such as Britannica, Encarta and several other online encyclopedias are, in fact, authoritative references thus reliable.

Lastly, I would like to inform anyone interested in this discussion that I'm requesing comments from third parties, in addition to a mediation request I just filed here;

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2009-04-30/War_of_the_Pacific

And I have posted a message requesting input on the reliability of my sources here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Encarta.2C_Globalsecurity.org_and_Onwar.com

I have also asked whether the line The turning point of the war was the occupation of Lima on January 17, 1881, a humiliation the Peruvians never forgave compromises the neutrality of the source. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard#is_Globalsecurity.org_a_Neutral_source.3F

Please notice that other reliable sources such as the New York Times also talk about humiliation [59] in their reports. So that statement can easily be sourced as well, even though, that's not my intention.

Likeminas ( talk) 17:51, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

The point contested in terms of Peru is not the matter of the word "humiliation," but rather the things associated to it. The Global Security source does not go into explicit detail as to why Peru felt humiliated, which makes it too broad for it to be a specifically good source for explaining the matter. On the other hand, the New York Times source that you have provided does go into detail and does explain why Peru would feel humiliated in terms of the overwhelming loss of battles.-- [|!*//MarshalN20\\*!|] ( talk) 22:51, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Excellent job in sending this information to other neutral editors. From what, thus far, I seem to understand from their perspective, they are going towards the same direction that was being proposed for the article: Neutraly include both pieces of information. The matter is currently too clouded for the article to take one stance or the other, for, I repeat at the sake of redundancy, both of you are providing good sources and taking good stances from both of your arguments. Unless either of you agree with one point or the other, which realistically speaking I know either of you will not, then the best way is to simply include a neutral statement that makes the article both more accurate with facts and verifiable. I'm sure that in the future this matter will be cleared up, but the future is a long way to come.-- [|!*//MarshalN20\\*!|] ( talk) 22:51, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

• Yes. It took me all of 2 minutes to find a reliable source to verify this: [60] Dlabtot ( talk) 16:43, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Here are some more sources: [61], [62], [63], [64], [65].... should I go on? Dlabtot ( talk) 17:06, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

No thanks. That should suffice. Likeminas ( talk) 17:52, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

By this point and time, the problem still remains that there are sources that provide varied information. According to WP policy, since there is an overwhelming amount of information in favor of Bolivia declaring war on Chile on or around March 1st, it should hold the stronger position in the article. However, it is equally important to mention what seems to be a small but strong argument that Bolivia did not declare war on or around that date.-- [|!*//MarshalN20\\*!|] ( talk) 22:56, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps this RfC was not the right question. If there actually is a consensus that multiple reliable sources say that Bolivia declared war on Chile (it seems an inescapable conclusion based on what I provided above, using none of the supposedly disputed sources), perhaps this RfC should be closed and a new one opened that asks about the proper weight of various viewpoints. BTW, what are the reliable, third-party, published sources that claim that Bolivia did not declare war? Dlabtot ( talk) 23:17, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Well there is one user that is still disputing that Bolivia declared war on Chile despite numerous publications corroborating this fact.

That's why, I wanted to address that issue first and then move on to the wording and weight of both versions.

I have no problems including the interpretation Arafael is trying to put forward, but as MarshalN20 says, proper weight should be given to most documented version.

Likeminas ( talk) 14:19, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Here's what people had to say about the ongoing discussion;

is Globalsecurity.org a Neutral source?

There’s an ongoing disagreement on the article War of the Pacific as to whether Bolivia declared war on Chile. Several sources actually state that Bolivia did declare war on Chile. One of them is Globalsecurity.org http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/war-of-the-pacific.htm

One user claims this source is not neutral since within the article there’s the following mention: The turning point of the war was the occupation of Lima on January 17, 1881, a humiliation the Peruvians never forgave, Daza...as brutal and incompetent as his predecessors

Yet, given the context of the war several sources talk about humiliation. See for example the headline of the NY times in 1879. The humiliation of Peru; The battles which preceded the occupation of Lima. [66]

I must also add, that the source is not being used to claim that Chile humiliated Peru during the war, but rather to verify that Bolivia (another country involved) declared war first. Please advice is this a neutral source?

Likeminas ( talk) 16:32, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

You are laboring under a misapprehension. WP:NPOV is a policy we use to guide our writing of Wikipedia articles, not a policy that we use to judge sources. All sources have a point of view. Dlabtot ( talk) 17:55, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

That is true; a better place for feedback about the appropriateness of that source would be the reliable sources noticeboard. It seems though that you may be alluding to an issue of undue weight, which of course is a point-of-view issue. You may wish to clarify your request, either here, there, or at both noticeboards. Baccyak4H ( Yak!) 19:08, 30 April 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arafael ( talk • contribs)

Encarta, Globalsecurity.org and Onwar.com

There’s an ongoing disagreement on the article War of the Pacific as to whether Bolivia declared war on Chile. Several sources actually state that Bolivia did declare war on Chile. Among those are; Encarta http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761565235/war_of_the_pacific.html ; Onwar.com http://www.onwar.com/aced/data/papa/pacific1879.htm and Globalsecurity.org http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/war-of-the-pacific.htm One user claims these sources are not reliable since they don’t list any references. Is this the case? I read somewhere that Encarta, Britannica and other online encyclopedias are authoritative. Please advice.

Likeminas ( talk) 16:15, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

"Authoritative"? Yes. "Inerrant"? No. Sometimes some sources are wrong. If you can't figure out which are which, word it something like "It is unknown whether Boliva declared war on Chile", and explain the problem on the talkpage. If somebody figures it out, the article will be improved. If nobody can, then that's the best representation of the events that can be. Διγουρεν _{Εμπρος!} 16:33, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Other sources also say that Bolivia declared war on Child, including Erik Goldstein's "Wars and Peace Treaties, 1816-1991" and others found here and here. I have to think that those sources can be at least used to say at the very least something like "Bolivia is reported to have declared war on ..."... John Carter ( talk) 16:41, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Don't use "is reported". Either you are sure, then state the fact (with source), or almost sure (source with attribution), or present both positions, with attribution to the sources.  Cs32en  23:46, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I would suggest checking through these: [67] Concentrate on the works published by reputable academic publishers – University Presses, Greenwood Publishing, Routledge imprints, etc. For what it's worth, this book, published by a research unit associated with Durham University, states that Bolivia declared war on 14 March 1879. But check through at least a couple of dozen reputable works; if there are differences of opinion on the facts among the most reliable sources, include and attribute both versions. Jayen 466 17:26, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

For international relations, this often will not work. Both sides (or all of the various sides) often have the resources to sponsor peer-reviewed research, encyclopedia etc.  Cs32en  23:50, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

There are sources that claim that Bolivia declared war on March 1st, March 8th, and March 14th; along with the sources that claim Bolivia declared no war prior to Chile's declaration of war. Like I pointed out in the article's talk page, I think that it would be best if the information was presented in a neutral point of view where it is noted that it is unknown if Bolivia truly declared war at that particular date.-- [|!*//MarshalN20\\*!|] ( talk) 22:44, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I didn't see those sources that claim Bolivia declared no war prior to Chile's declaration of war so I don't even know if they exist. But, when sources DO conflict, we don't throw up our hands and say it's unknown, rather, we simply report what the various sources say, without giving undue weight to fringe viewpoints. But that is a discussion for the NPOV noticeboard, not here. Dlabtot ( talk) 22:51, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

There are books (in Spanish) written by mainly Peruvian and Bolivian historians that claim Bolivia passed several decrees against Chilean interests in the region, which in turn, were interpreted by the Chilean government as a declaration of war. Likeminas ( talk) 14:04, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

There is one Chilean source in there that seems supportive of the claim Bolivia did not declare war but rather simply took highly aggressive actions. However, they do tend to be mainly Peruvian and Bolivian historians. The vast majority of what could be called "neutral" sources tend to favor the idea that Bolivia did declare war but, as we all should know, "neutral" does not equal "accurate" or "knowledgeable" and therefore sometimes they can be vague sources that do not provide as much information that is necessary to serve as verification. From my perspective, using a vague source to certify what is supposed to be describing something important is by no means correct.-- [|!*//MarshalN20\\*!|] ( talk) 20:18, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

(reply to both) It would be very helpful, if rather than just stating that these sources exist, you actually identified them. Dlabtot ( talk) 00:34, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Encarta is a reliable tertiary source but it's also a competing encyclopedia so we should see if other sources are available. Globalsecurity.org originated from the Federation of American Scientists and is very well-respected. Onwar.com I wasn't familiar with, but from searching for it on Google Books it looks adequate. Try for more book sources for the declaration of war. If they conflict on the exact date you can say "early March" and cite them all with the exact date in the footnotes. If the sources conflict on whether a formal declaration of war was made then dig deeper. Squidfryerchef ( talk) 17:25, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

This is a quote from user Arafael, which argues the opposing view of the argument (I'm attempting to be the "neutral" third party between him and Likeminas), which is the one in favor of Bolivia not declaring war on March: "Check out these books about the Bolivian decree [68] of March 1: Mariano Felipe Paz Soldan - Peruvian [69] Luis Peñaloza Cordero - Bolivian [70] Atilio Sivirichi - Peruvian [71] Juan Pereira Fiorilo - Bolivian [72] Alejandro Soto Cárdenas - Chilean [73] Casto Rojas - Bolivian [74] Alcira Cardona Torrico - Bolivian [75]."-- [|!*//MarshalN20\\*!|] ( talk) 16:14, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

The books that Arafael presents look to be reliable sources. All of them make specific mention of the decree of March 1st, citing the aggressive actions taken by the Bolivian government, but none of them make mention of a declaration of war. If a war was indeed declared during that time or due to that decree, then it seems obvious to me that they would have had to make mention of it (A declaration war cannot be simply "skipped" as it is highly important). Now, I'm currently not an expert at these things (even though I eventually plan to be) of evaluating sources as reliable, but it seems to me that there is also a strong and verifiable position in favor of Bolivia not declaring war on March. Even if "neutral" sources tend to claim otherwise, sometimes they are not correct even if they think that they are correct. However, since the lot of you here are more experienced at this, do you think that the sources provided by Arafael are reliable? (Because if they are not, then this whole argument would be done and dead).-- [|!*//MarshalN20\\*!|] ( talk) 16:14, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

We have established that multiple reliable sources say that Bolivia declared war. It seems that no reliable sources exist that dispute this. Rather, we have Wikipedia editors who are reaching this conclusion, based on their own interpretation and analysis of sources. Lacking sources that actually state that Bolivia did not declare war, we must simply state what the sources say. Sources that don't mention the absence of a declaration of war certainly could not be used to assert the viewpoint that Bolivia did not declare war. Dlabtot ( talk) 18:41, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

How exactly is there an WP:OR problem if in the first source that Arafael provided, it states: "Declaración de ruptura de comunicaciones con Chile y embargo de propiedades de súbditos chilenos." Roughly translated to: "Declaration of Rupture in Communications with Chile and Embargo of Chilean Properties." This the declaration of March 1st that allegedly is the declaration of war of Bolivia. There is no Original Research when the title of the decree, and the information within the decree, essentially make no mention of war. The other sources, which explain what happened on March 1st, also make no mention of a declaration of war. How is this "our" (I say "our" because I'm defending Arafael's point, please remember that I'm just trying to figure out the truth of the matter as a good 3rd party editor would) "interpertation and analysis" of sources? Have you not read them yourself?-- [|!*//MarshalN20\\*!|] ( talk) 18:58, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

It's actually pretty simple. If a source says that Bolivia did not declare war, then we can report that that source said that Bolivia did not declare war. If a source does not say that Bolivia did not declare war, we can not report that that source said that Bolivia did not declare war. I have nothing further to say about the matter. Dlabtot ( talk) 19:37, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

If I understand correctly, then, since the sources that Arafael have provided do state that Bolivia took aggressive measures during the declaration of March the 1st and make no mention of no war, then we can and should report that "according to Peruvian, Bolivian, and Chilean historians that analysed the Bolivian government's decree of March 1st, Bolivia took aggressive measures against the Chilean invasion of Bolivian territory, but make no mention of a declaration of war." Having said that, it is neither stated that Bolivia declared or did not declare war on that date, all that is stated (as the sources verify) is that there is no mention of a declaration of war. Since it has also been agreed that the sources are reliable, then there is no problem with them. Oh, and by the way, does your "I have nothing further to say about the matter" mean that you read or did not read the sources? (You seem to have forgotten that question).-- [|!*//MarshalN20\\*!|] ( talk) 22:26, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

MarshallN20 so much for neutrality.

I read the Wikidocument and I'll tell you the same thing I told Arafel when this whole discussion started. The decree is not being used to reference the claim that Bolivia declared war on Chile.

17:44, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

"On March 1st, Bolivia passed an internal decree against Chilean interests, which in turn, were interpreted by the Chilean government as a declaration of war"

• Chilean source [76]. Historian Guillermo Lagos Carmona. History of the borders of Chile.
• Bolivian source [77]. Diplomat and historian Ramiro Prudencio Lizón. The occupation of Antofagasta.
• Peruvian source [78]. Historian Atilio Sivirichi. History of Peru

Arafael ( talk) 14:39, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

That’s been my point from the very beginning.

Sice I’m not a historian I don’t know whether these sources are 100% correct or not.

What I do know, is that they are reliable and they state a point I want to reference. That’s all.

To me it seems, Arafael and (now MarshalN20) are adding their own interpretations to the story. It also looks like the interpretation version is the minority point of view anyway.

In any case, please let’s continue the discussion on the talk page.

Likeminas ( talk) 16:39, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Findings so far

• From what I see, most people agree that the statement “Bolivia declared war on Chile” is verifiable by a vast amount of sources, besides the ones I’ve posted.

• Some sources seem to be discrepant on the exact date of the war declaration.

• From what I read from other people, both versions should be included, but greater weight is given to the majority version.

Likeminas ( talk) 16:56, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

The discussion here seems to be a work for a historian. I read though the discussion and can say that I inclines toward to the interpretation of that Bolivia did not declare war on Chile the 1st of March, but that as stated before the hostile actions were interpeted as a defacto declaration of war by Chile. Some of the books cited with names such as History of South America are not reliable to me as they give short versions of the events and simplifies these very subtle but yet important acts. The article should say something like following:

althought many sources mentions the 1st of March as the date of the Bolivian declaration of war other does not mention any explicit declarion of war among the decrees enacted the 1st of March, yet another sources gives the 14st and the 18th as the dates of a Bolivian declaration of War.

Note that this would be temporary paragraph until the existence of a bolivian declaration of war is verified or denied or alternatively; that the existence of the controversy is stated by reliable sources. Dentren | ^Talk 18:17, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

True and fair neutrality

Thanks for that input.

You should all receive a big thank you for coming to a neutral and peaceful conclusion to this discussion.-- [|!*//MarshalN20\\*!|] ( talk) 23:39, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Likeminas ( talk) 18:31, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

That's exactly what I have been saying too (Not to lesser down anything Dentren has said, of course), but Dentren has made a much more effective description of the problem in his sentence. Also, in my talk page, Likeminas, you are accusing me of no longer being neutral. I still consider myself neutral to this position, but obviously I still want to figure out the truth. Just like Dentren states, this matter seems to be one where a historian would come in handy, and the sources presented by Arafael clearly point towards the story being a different one than the one presented by Chile.-- [|!*//MarshalN20\\*!|] ( talk) 00:24, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Guillermo Lagos Carmona, chilean historian, lawyer and ambassador, in his book: "History of the borders of Chile" [79] page 65, Section 4: "The declaration of war of bolivia" considers the Bolivian decree from president Daza (March 1st) , against Chilean interests in Bolivia, as a declaration of war.

Arafael ( talk) 19:45, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Ramiro Prudencio Lizón, bolivian historian and diplomat, in "La Razon", bolivian newspaper, digital edition, Feb 20th 2008: [80] The occupation of Antofagasta: "So that Chile could move further north, there was a need for a formal declaration of war. And it wasn't that country but rather Bolivia that sent an internal decree that afterwards would be interpreted as a real declaration of war. This was published on March 1st 1879.. Also in [81] "Correo del Sur", bolivian newspaper, Feb 14th 2004.

Arafael ( talk) 13:39, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Atilio Sivirichi Tapia, peruvian historian and professor, in his book, "History of Peru", page 193, [82] [83]: "Bolivia limited itself to declaring the 1st of March, with relations with Chile cut, a statement declaring the expulsion of Chileans. This deed, was interpreted by the Chilean government, as declaration of war as a cause for the occupation of the whole coast".

Arafael ( talk) 14:10, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Tommaso Caivano, italian historian, in his book : "History of the American war between Chile, Peru and Bolivia", Page 66 (Il 17 marzo, il Gabinetto...) [84] [85] : "This decree, as it clearly reads, just gives some actions on the state of war ... and, as textually detail, "during the war that Chile has promoted to Bolivia", it was interpreted by Chile, in an original way. The Government of Chile said that the decree contained a declaration of war."

Arafael ( talk) 20:06, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

After have read these sources the contradictions between the sources claming a declaration of war and the others that just mentions asome decrees seems to have been cleared up. I therefore propose to put this sentence (or a simillar one) in the article:

Bolivia never formally declared war on Chile but stated in the decree of 1st March that Chiled had put forward a war against Bolivia. The Chilean side regarded the Bolivian decree as a de facto declaration of war. [86] Dentren | ^Talk 15:06, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

The above goes without mentioning the rest of what the Bolivian decree states which in turn was interpreted by the Chilean government as a declaration of war.

-On March 1 Bolivia informally declared war by decree that the Chilean government interpreted as a de facto declaration of war- tends to work better. Selecciones de la Vida ( talk) 16:30, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

-On March 1 Bolivia published a presidential decree wich states the expulsion of Chileans and the taking of Chilean private property. This was interpreted by the Chilean government as a declaration of war. Bolivia never formally declared war on Chile but stated in the decree of 1st March that Chile had put forward a war against Bolivia. The Chilean side regarded the Bolivian decree as a "de facto" declaration of war. ^{[1] [2] [3]}

Arafael ( talk) 19:03, 7 May 2009 (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)

Looks good to me.

Likeminas ( talk) 01:06, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Totally agree. Dentren | ^Talk 10:17, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Agree. Arafael ( talk) 19:28, 11 May 2009 (UTC)