This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | → | Archive 10 |
Is "Latin America's wars. Robert L. Scheina" a valid source?
1*On march 18 Bolivia declared war and confiscated all Chilean property.
2*Peruvian decision-makers feared that if they did not honor the secreat treaty, Bolivia might join with Chile and seize Tarapaca nitrate fields.
3*President Prado sent Jose Arnaldo Marquez to Argentina in an attempt....
4*Peru declared war on Chile the same day (5 april).
Arafael ( talk) 19:37, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
A response to the points and source that you posted.
1*It was not a declaration of war -Considering all the sources provided it's been concluded that it was an informal declaration of war in the form of a decree.
2*It's a personal opinion from the author. -Valid argument and should be discussed because the source is reliable.
3*President Prado sent Jose Arnaldo Marquez to Argentina in an attempt.
-Jose Arnaldo Marquez is indeed a writer. Scheina writes that he was sent to Argentina and should be discussed. As for the source you provide it states that (Since the days of the Lavalle mission in Chile, Peru wanted to seek an alliance with Argentina that put the Argentine government in Buenos Aires into a difficult situation). This source supports the idea that Peru was openly seeking an alliance with Argentina.
4*Peru declared war on Chile the same day (5 april). -Regretfully, at this time I am unable to view the document that you link. Hopefully other editors may participate. Selecciones de la Vida ( talk) 22:45, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
Arafael, could you please provide the page numbers with the citations you make? That way I'll be able to check them with more efficiency.-- [|!*//MarshalN20\\*!|] ( talk) 11:54, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
The first thing to note is that the March 18th date is incorrect. Consensus has been achieved that March 1st was the day of the declaration, and that it was an informal declaration of war in the eyes of Chile (just like the invasion of Antofagasta was an informal declaration of war by the eyes of Bolivia). The second statement sounds like PoV from the author, but I need to see the exact page so that I may know if it is cited in the book (there is a works cited part of it in the last pages of it; which makes the book verifiable and therefore reliable). The third statement, about the diplomat, should really be checked (Jose Arnaldo seems incorrect as he is a writer, not a diplomat). The part about the support of alliance from Peru and Argentina, there is a difference between ongoing past attempts from Peru and the current situation during the War of the Pacific. Essentially, Peru may have indeed tried various other past times to seek an alliance with Argentina, but at the moment of the war the Peruvian diplomat did not have any mission to propose an alliance to Argentina. Yet, if that was not the purpose of the Peruvian diplomat, then what was he doing in Argentina? This matter has to be further investigated too. Remember the WP:OR rule, however, and look for verifiable sources that already state the information and not for primary sources where you have done your own research.-- [|!*//MarshalN20\\*!|] ( talk) 11:54, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
Here we go again.
In all honesty, I haven't read all the sources presented by Arafael, but from a quick glance at some of them I can say that they seem to be reliable, and so far he's made valid objections.
When I have more spared time (which I think will be tomorrow night) I will read carefully the disputed points, I will try to find additional sources and after I’m done I will post my thoughts and findings here.
Likeminas (
talk) 21:16, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
Why is it better to have a picture gallery than to have the pictures under their relevant sections? Please explain this to me. Likeminas ( talk) 14:22, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
If there are too many images about the same issue or images that doesn't fit the section or images with different size but equal importance or images that "break" the layout of the page, etc, then can be better to gather the images in a gallery and wait for a selection or better distribution of the images. I think now it is OK.
--
Keysanger (
talk) 21:35, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
Hi Arafael,
Can you explain me why did you tagged following text?
Why did you delete my added references?.
Thanks,
-- Keysanger ( talk) 21:52, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
In regards to this statement that Arafael tagged as POV
During this time Peru acquiesced to Bolivia's request of secret alliance fearing that Bolivia would join with Chile and seize Peru's nitrate field in Tarapaca
I will only add that most books, journals and even encyclopedias have an editorial stance. However, Wikipedia doesn't require that the sources use a NPOV language, it is how we write it in the article that must adhere to the policy of neutrality not the source per se.
Likeminas ( talk) 23:36, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
I can't understand why
is tagged with neutrality disputed.
The argentine Site http://www.argentina-rree.com/6/6-081.htm La misión Balmaceda: asegurar la neutralidad argentina en la guerra del Pacífico
Can Arafael tell me what should be no-neutral there?
Your reference :
is about 1878 and 1875 and not about 1879.
-- Keysanger ( talk) 19:48, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
It's cricial that you read WP:POV and WP:NPOV
Hard facts are really rare. What we most commonly encounter are opinions from people (POVs). Inherently, because of this, most articles on Wikipedia are full of POVs. An article which clearly, accurately, and fairly describes all the major, verifiable points of view will, by definition, be in accordance with Wikpedia's NPOV policy.
Arafael, it's not enough that
you claim it makes mistakes.
If it makes mistakes, you must point out how and
provide another reliable source that contradicts the statement you're disputing.
MarshalN20 and you might think it sounds like POV from the author but let me say this again, and hopefully this one will be clear enough to be understood. Sources do not have to be NPOV, our statments in the article do.
I beg other users to intervene, because I fail to understand what part of what I have been repeatedly saying isn't clear!
Likeminas (
talk) 22:37, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
We are talking about the time after on February 14, 1879.
I think that is all. There are only sourced text and no one can feel pissed.
-- Keysanger ( talk) 18:35, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
Peru prepared for war with President Mariano Prado exhorting his representative in Argentina, Aníbal Víctor de la Torre, to offer that nation Bolivian territories in exchange of military alliance against Chile .
Likeminas ( talk) 19:33, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
Hi Arafael,
You deleted a second time my references to the peruvian offer to Argentina after the beginning of the war:
http://www.argentina-rree.com/6/6-081.htm La misión Balmaceda: asegurar la neutralidad argentina en la guerra del Pacífico]:
That is a good reference (from a third party). I write it again as a full text with translation, that you can improve.
-- Keysanger ( talk) 22:05, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
I added the sections "Argentine Position" and "Diplomatic efforts" in order to clarify the article. Also I moved to the new sections the paragraph the needed text.
-- Keysanger ( talk) 22:43, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
We have again a problem with the images, because the section "The war" is (still) too short. Should we delete or move an image? which? Do we need 2 images of the Huascar?
-- Keysanger ( talk) 22:48, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
I put already the reference to "Chile requested neutrality from Peru", it is absolutly correct.
Why do you say that it is incorrect?
If you have a seriously reference to what Peru requested from Chile, I ask you to put it, more, YOU HAVE TO PUT IT or we will be writting a biased article.
But, please, be carefull by your edits, yesterday you write twice the same paragraph.
-- Keysanger ( talk) 16:46, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
When war broke out Argentina sent a naval squadron to Rio Negro menacing the Chilean dominion of the Straits of Magellan. [1] However, it has been argued that the Chilean naval superiority was the main factor preventing Argentina from taking part in the war. [2]
HI ARAFAEL,
YOU DELETE MY REFERENCES FOR A THIRD TIME!
If you delete my references againg you will be banned of the english wikipedia.
-- Keysanger ( talk) 16:52, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
I take it easy and use the shift keys because it seems to me that Arafael ignores the basic rules of wikipedia.
I warned Arafael three times and he continued to delete my references. He told about other themes but he didn't apologize. We shouldn't accept such behavior and the most of the wikipedia writers see it also so.
References are the connection with the sources and wikipedia is nothing without sources. If we begin to delete the references to the sources then we will lost wikipedia.
We should request to have this page protected, so that we can settle some issues here before implementing any changes in the article.
Likeminass, given that your english is better than mine, please talk to a admin about this issue.
I recognize Arafael's work to improve the article, but he should take more time by his edits.
-- Keysanger ( talk) 16:55, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
1. POV Map. Puna de atacama incorrect. Without parallels. Previous map was designed among colaborators from Chile and Peru in [14] and [15]
2. Only one POV about 1873 alliance.
3. twice "On 6th February 1873 Peru and Bolivia..."
4. Only one POV : Occupation of Antofagasta; Other POV: Invasion of Antofagasta
5. This reference was removed http://www.memoriachilena.cl/archivos2/pdfs/MC0000309.pdf Los empresarios, la politica y la Guerra del Pacifico. Luis Ortega. Santiago de Chile. 1984. (Page 18. File Antony Gibbs & Sons AGA. Valparaiso to Londres. Private N 25. March 6, 1878)
Arafael ( talk) 13:08, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
I placed the clause about the secret pact within the reference. Leaving it in italic and under a separate paragraph might come across as Chilean POV. Likeminas ( talk) 12:53, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
Arafael I didn't remove your tag.
Regarding the issues you raise; 1) I agree. The other map seems to be better. So I would have no objection in reinstating that one.
2)If to Peru and Bolivia the treaty was "defensive" and to Chile was "secret and/or offensive" then the article should display ALL POV's.
4)This point is just petty. Nonetheless, I should say that invasion might be somewhat weasel. So I would just leave as it is.
Likeminas ( talk) 16:27, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
1) No one had said WHY the new map is wrong.
I say the map File:Pacifico1879.svg is wrong
the new map in contrast is better because:
Please say WHY do you find your map better! (Keysanger.)
1. It lacks the parallels. If you haven't noticed, this war heavily revolves around the parallels as one of the war disputes and border peace treaties. 2. The "Chilean territories before war" color looks confusing. I don't know if it is pointing to Argentina or to Chile. Also, there is no explanation if whether the territories in brown were disputed between Argentina and Chile (which I think they were).-- [|!*//MarshalN20\\*!|] ( talk) 02:51, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
It isn't a personal opinion. It is the Generic Mapping Tools border database. Many colaborators is warrant for nothing, if they don't use a good method. And they didn't use it. The today boundary in Puna de Atacama is actually very diferent as showed in the "Many colaborators" map.
The Bolivia-Argentina Boundary was modified after the war, but not directly because the war, it was complicated, Tarija, etc.. Therefore we can't use the black line, reserved for the "after war and because of war boundary". I used red. Your "Many colaborators" map also makes a diference between the Chile-Peru-Bolivia boundary (black line and no line) and the Peru-Bolivia and Bolivia-Argentina boundary (no line). Why is this method good in the collaborators-map and wrong in the GMT-map? Can you explain that?
Then increase it.: I increased the typesize of the "ARGENTINA" string and made another map. So, I did it. Accept it.
About the sources of the "Many colaborators" map File:Pacifico1879.svg:
In the description page we read:
We follow the link and find File:Borders-Bolivia-Chile-Peru-Before and after Pacfic War of 1879 SP.png and there is finally the source of the map: File:Borders_Chile_1879_and_2006.png. But there is the note:
This map is erroneus, use Image:Borders-Bolivia-Chile-Peru-Before and after Pacfic War of 1879 SP.png
So, someone shares partially my opinion about the map. But there are three other links:
The first link leads to a private website, there is no map.
The second link leads to Guerra-del-pacifico-01-a.svg. I took the colors from this map, but the map shows only the boundary before the war, and the Puna the Atacama zone is, I think, to big southwards.
The third map is the same I used to define the Peru-Bolivia Boundary before the war.
So, allegedly both maps should be the same. They are not, because the File:Pacifico1879.svg doesn't show the Rio Loa (and many others), also it doesn't show a scale.
All things considered, I repeat:
the new map in contrast is better because:
I think, this issue is finished. If anyone wants, we can call a Mediation about. -- Keysanger ( talk) 23:09, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
We agree that there were at least 3 Parties: Chile, Bolivia and Peru. For these three parties apply that the Treaty was secret. So, the treaty was secret. there is no doubt about that.
What about defensive?
May be that the pact was defensiv for Bolivia and Peru. But, was defensive for Chile? No, in no way. For Chile the pact was no defensive.
Every wiki editor can write "the pact was secret" because it was.
Please explain me WHY the pact was defensive for Chile, before you delete my text.
-- Keysanger ( talk) 22:22, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
Let's leave our
interpretations aside for a moment.
If the treaty was purely defensive from the viewpoint of Peru and Bolivia then references need to be provided stating just that. On the other hand, if the treaty was seen as secretive and/or offensive by Chile, then, the same rule applies. If we end up with both claims being verifiable by reliable sources (which I think we will) then, we should present both of them.
Likeminas ( talk) 13:54, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
Marschall wrote:
That is false. Iran says that they don't want to build the bomb. Do the international comunity believe that? Someone yes, others no. In our case Bolivia and Peru say the pact is defensive. That is a fact: they say that, the defensive character of the pact is not the fact.
Marschall wrote:
That is your personal POV. You say misunderstood, correct is:
I can see now that the problem is bigger than I supposed at the beginning of my contributions to this article. We have to begin with the finding of the facts and then write about the interpretation and consequences of the facts in the three countries. I considerer essential to describe following FACTS:
I will bring the references to this facts as soon as posible. If you think that there some issues needless, redundant or other needed facts, let us know.
Please, be cool, do not use so much bold in your comments.
Marschall: Who has said that Chile understood the secret treaty as aggresive? . Where did you read that?
-- Keysanger ( talk) 12:22, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
Likeminas, how have you positively established that the treaty was at least Defensive? -- Keysanger ( talk) 16:17, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
That don't change the fact that that is what they say. -- Keysanger ( talk) 18:28, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
Likeminas,
I don't need any proof, because I use the source of the pact. The pact says this is a defensive alliance and I corrected your contribution ("it was a defensive pact") with they called it a defensive alliance. You have to proof that the pact was defensive and you can't do it because that is, as Arfael contribution states, (lo storico chileno Barros Arana dice nella sua cosidetta Historia de la Guerra del Pacifico, che era un Trattato di alleanza offensiva e difensiva. Questo può dare una idea del modo) come si interpretano e riferiscono i fatti nel Chili. ("how they interpret")
If you say "defensive", that is a interpretation of the history, it is not a fact and if you want to publish that in english Wikipedia, you have to say "Diego says it was a defensive pact". Don't get confused with the name and the content of a idea. The Hitler-Stalin Pact was officially titled the Treaty of Non-aggression between Germany and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. In reality Hitler used the pact to prepare the Operation Barbarossa, that is, the invasion of the Soviet Union. Other example: Mission Accomplished said George W. Bush. Would you write an article and say "the mission was accomplished". No!, you would write, Bush said: Mission Accomplished.
Do you actually mean that is a proof?. For God's sake!. That is any thing but a historical study of the War of the Pacific, That is a list of documents kept in the Chilean Foreign Officce. Your Italian "proof" is a proof for me: That are interpretations of the pact, says the text.
So, I think, I have explained my reasons why I reverted your changes. I apologize for my english and request you urgently to correct it if you have time for.
Arafael,
stay cool. In my last contribution to the discussion, I put a list of issues I wanted to expand. Among others I wrote:
If you think that is incorrect, then explain first why do you think so. Wich issues should be assigned to an article, that is a controversial theme. I promise you, you will ignite the war again if you try to coerce my freedom to cooperate with Wikipedia.
By the way, the superiority of the Peruvian navy at the beginnig of the 1870s and the census of Antofagasta are not controversial. You find it overall.
May I move this discussion page to archive and open a new one?. We have advanced a lot at the last days, and the discussion is exciting but my DSL-provider will go bankrupt.
-- Keysanger ( talk) 10:18, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
Continuning the discussion, all I see here from your part Keysanger is a highly biased POV. You seem to think of yourself as some sort of heroic defender, with idiotic little phrases such as: "I promise you, you will ignite the war again if you try to coerce my freedom to cooperate with Wikipedia." Come on gentlemen! Wake up, we're not having a "mini war of the pacific" here. Three users, Likemina, Arafael, and me (MarshalN20), all agree that the neutral third party sources (from Peru, Bolivia, and Chile) demonstrate that the alliance between Peru and Bolivia was defensive. However, it will be impossible to work with people who will only respond: "I don't need any proof, because I use the source of the pact." If you don't want to contribute to this article in a peaceful manner, please do go play your little war games elsewhere Keysanger.-- //[*]MarshalN20[*]\\ ( talk) 02, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
Keysanger:
I’m afraid you do not understand how Wikipedia works. Or perhaps you do not want to understand it.
Look, it is a fairly simple process.
If there’s a reliable source that states (in this case) that the treaty was defensive, then, the claim that the treaty was, indeed, defensive is verifiable. Wikipedia not as concerned with this statement being “the truth” as much as it is concerned with it being verifiable.
Now, if you dispute the claim that the treaty was defensive, then, you need to provide another reliable source that contradicts it.
The documents from the Chilean Foreign ministry are reliable sources whether you like it or not.
Finally, you should know that your interpretations, analogies and snippy remarks won’t get you anywhere here. Only reliable sources will.
Likeminas ( talk) 15:57, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
| || Wikipedia is an encyclopedia incorporating elements of general and specialized encyclopedias, almanacs, and gazetteers. All articles must strive for verifiable accuracy: unreferenced material may be removed, so please provide references. Wikipedia is not the place to insert personal opinions, experiences, or arguments. Original ideas, interpretations, or research cannot be verified, and are thus inappropriate. Wikipedia is not a soapbox; an advertising platform; a vanity press; an experiment in anarchy or democracy; an indiscriminate collection of information; or a web directory. It is not a newspaper or a collection of source documents; these kinds of content should be contributed to the Wikimedia sister projects. |- | |- | || Wikipedia has a neutral point of view, which means we strive for articles that advocate no single point of view. Sometimes this requires representing multiple points of view, presenting each point of view accurately, providing context for any given point of view, and presenting no one point of view as "the truth" or "the best view". It means citing verifiable, authoritative sources whenever possible, especially on controversial topics. When a conflict arises regarding neutrality, declare a cool-down period and tag the article as disputed, hammer out details on the talk page, and follow dispute resolution. |- | |- | || Wikipedia is free content that anyone may edit. All of Wikipedia's text is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Sharealike 3.0 Unported License (CC-BY-SA); much of it is also licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL). It may be distributed or linked accordingly. Recognize that articles can be changed by anyone and no individual exclusively controls any specific article; therefore, any writing you contribute can be mercilessly edited and redistributed at will by the community. Do not infringe on copyright or submit work licensed in a way incompatible with Wikipedia's licensing. |- | |- | || Wikipedia has a code of conduct: Respect your fellow Wikipedians even when you may not agree with them. Be civil. Avoid conflicts of interest, personal attacks and sweeping generalizations. Find consensus, avoid edit wars, follow the three-revert rule, and remember that there are 6,824,798 articles on the English Wikipedia to work on and discuss. Act in good faith, never disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point, and assume good faith on the part of others. Be open and welcoming. |- | |- | || Wikipedia does not have firm rules besides the five general principles presented here. Be bold in editing, moving, and modifying articles. Although it should be the aim, perfection is not required. Do not worry about making mistakes. In most cases, all prior versions of articles are kept, so there is no way that you can accidentally damage Wikipedia or irretrievably destroy content. |}
well done Marschall!
But what you told there is again not the truth. You wrote:
I think, you mean me, but I didn't say the pact was aggressive. I said/say, that defensive/ofensive are interpretations of the pact and request to put it as that, interpretations: they called it defensive. I repeat for the third opinion my arguments given to Likeminas:
About your next statement:
I state only that we have to take care not to insult the intelligence of other people.
-- Keysanger ( talk) 12:47, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
Keysanger:
I’m afraid you do not understand how Wikipedia works. Or perhaps you do not want to understand it.
Look, it is a fairly simple process.
If there’s a reliable source that states (in this case) that the treaty was defensive, then, the claim that the treaty was, indeed, defensive is verifiable. Wikipedia not as concerned with this statement being “the truth” as much as it is concerned with it being verifiable.
Now, if you dispute the claim that the treaty was defensive, then, you need to provide another reliable source that contradicts it.
The documents from the Chilean Foreign ministry are reliable sources whether you like it or not.
Finally, you should know that your interpretations, analogies and snippy remarks won’t get you anywhere here. Only reliable sources will.
Likeminas ( talk) 15:58, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
Likeminas, Marshal,
you continue to ignore my arguments and instead use Ad hominem.
Under the title Continuning the discussion Marshall contributed with [25]:
Likeminas violates the Wikipedia:Assume good faith with [26] I’m afraid you do not understand how Wikipedia works. Or perhaps you "do not want to understand it".
That aren't the appropriate terms for for a discussion under wikipedians. I am not accustomed to that.
Please, stop it, thank you. -- Keysanger ( talk) 21:08, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
You continue attacking me [27]:
I see you have problems to strike the right note. Please, inform yourself about the Wikipedia:Civility. Thank you Marshal, -- Keysanger ( talk) 19:19, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
Do you agree that the pact was secret regards Chile?. Please answer this question without personal attacks. -- Keysanger ( talk) 21:14, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
The pact was secret to all nations in the planet, except for Peru and Bolivia. There was no specific nation targeted. Why are you trying to make Chile seem a victim?-- //[*]MarshalN20[*]\\ ( talk) 19:46, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
Do you affirm that Argentina was not informed about the pact? Do you have reliable sources for? -- Keysanger ( talk) 20:37, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
Was Argentina notified of the secret alliance only after Chile and Bolivia began to increment on their border disputes, or was intended in the text of the pact to invite other countries? -- Keysanger ( talk) 19:10, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
Was Argentina notified of the secret alliance only after Chile and Bolivia began to increment on their border disputes, or was intended in the text of the pact to invite other countries? -- Keysanger ( talk) 22:54, 9 July 2009 (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 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | → | Archive 10 |
Is "Latin America's wars. Robert L. Scheina" a valid source?
1*On march 18 Bolivia declared war and confiscated all Chilean property.
2*Peruvian decision-makers feared that if they did not honor the secreat treaty, Bolivia might join with Chile and seize Tarapaca nitrate fields.
3*President Prado sent Jose Arnaldo Marquez to Argentina in an attempt....
4*Peru declared war on Chile the same day (5 april).
Arafael ( talk) 19:37, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
A response to the points and source that you posted.
1*It was not a declaration of war -Considering all the sources provided it's been concluded that it was an informal declaration of war in the form of a decree.
2*It's a personal opinion from the author. -Valid argument and should be discussed because the source is reliable.
3*President Prado sent Jose Arnaldo Marquez to Argentina in an attempt.
-Jose Arnaldo Marquez is indeed a writer. Scheina writes that he was sent to Argentina and should be discussed. As for the source you provide it states that (Since the days of the Lavalle mission in Chile, Peru wanted to seek an alliance with Argentina that put the Argentine government in Buenos Aires into a difficult situation). This source supports the idea that Peru was openly seeking an alliance with Argentina.
4*Peru declared war on Chile the same day (5 april). -Regretfully, at this time I am unable to view the document that you link. Hopefully other editors may participate. Selecciones de la Vida ( talk) 22:45, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
Arafael, could you please provide the page numbers with the citations you make? That way I'll be able to check them with more efficiency.-- [|!*//MarshalN20\\*!|] ( talk) 11:54, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
The first thing to note is that the March 18th date is incorrect. Consensus has been achieved that March 1st was the day of the declaration, and that it was an informal declaration of war in the eyes of Chile (just like the invasion of Antofagasta was an informal declaration of war by the eyes of Bolivia). The second statement sounds like PoV from the author, but I need to see the exact page so that I may know if it is cited in the book (there is a works cited part of it in the last pages of it; which makes the book verifiable and therefore reliable). The third statement, about the diplomat, should really be checked (Jose Arnaldo seems incorrect as he is a writer, not a diplomat). The part about the support of alliance from Peru and Argentina, there is a difference between ongoing past attempts from Peru and the current situation during the War of the Pacific. Essentially, Peru may have indeed tried various other past times to seek an alliance with Argentina, but at the moment of the war the Peruvian diplomat did not have any mission to propose an alliance to Argentina. Yet, if that was not the purpose of the Peruvian diplomat, then what was he doing in Argentina? This matter has to be further investigated too. Remember the WP:OR rule, however, and look for verifiable sources that already state the information and not for primary sources where you have done your own research.-- [|!*//MarshalN20\\*!|] ( talk) 11:54, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
Here we go again.
In all honesty, I haven't read all the sources presented by Arafael, but from a quick glance at some of them I can say that they seem to be reliable, and so far he's made valid objections.
When I have more spared time (which I think will be tomorrow night) I will read carefully the disputed points, I will try to find additional sources and after I’m done I will post my thoughts and findings here.
Likeminas (
talk) 21:16, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
Why is it better to have a picture gallery than to have the pictures under their relevant sections? Please explain this to me. Likeminas ( talk) 14:22, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
If there are too many images about the same issue or images that doesn't fit the section or images with different size but equal importance or images that "break" the layout of the page, etc, then can be better to gather the images in a gallery and wait for a selection or better distribution of the images. I think now it is OK.
--
Keysanger (
talk) 21:35, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
Hi Arafael,
Can you explain me why did you tagged following text?
Why did you delete my added references?.
Thanks,
-- Keysanger ( talk) 21:52, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
In regards to this statement that Arafael tagged as POV
During this time Peru acquiesced to Bolivia's request of secret alliance fearing that Bolivia would join with Chile and seize Peru's nitrate field in Tarapaca
I will only add that most books, journals and even encyclopedias have an editorial stance. However, Wikipedia doesn't require that the sources use a NPOV language, it is how we write it in the article that must adhere to the policy of neutrality not the source per se.
Likeminas ( talk) 23:36, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
I can't understand why
is tagged with neutrality disputed.
The argentine Site http://www.argentina-rree.com/6/6-081.htm La misión Balmaceda: asegurar la neutralidad argentina en la guerra del Pacífico
Can Arafael tell me what should be no-neutral there?
Your reference :
is about 1878 and 1875 and not about 1879.
-- Keysanger ( talk) 19:48, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
It's cricial that you read WP:POV and WP:NPOV
Hard facts are really rare. What we most commonly encounter are opinions from people (POVs). Inherently, because of this, most articles on Wikipedia are full of POVs. An article which clearly, accurately, and fairly describes all the major, verifiable points of view will, by definition, be in accordance with Wikpedia's NPOV policy.
Arafael, it's not enough that
you claim it makes mistakes.
If it makes mistakes, you must point out how and
provide another reliable source that contradicts the statement you're disputing.
MarshalN20 and you might think it sounds like POV from the author but let me say this again, and hopefully this one will be clear enough to be understood. Sources do not have to be NPOV, our statments in the article do.
I beg other users to intervene, because I fail to understand what part of what I have been repeatedly saying isn't clear!
Likeminas (
talk) 22:37, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
We are talking about the time after on February 14, 1879.
I think that is all. There are only sourced text and no one can feel pissed.
-- Keysanger ( talk) 18:35, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
Peru prepared for war with President Mariano Prado exhorting his representative in Argentina, Aníbal Víctor de la Torre, to offer that nation Bolivian territories in exchange of military alliance against Chile .
Likeminas ( talk) 19:33, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
Hi Arafael,
You deleted a second time my references to the peruvian offer to Argentina after the beginning of the war:
http://www.argentina-rree.com/6/6-081.htm La misión Balmaceda: asegurar la neutralidad argentina en la guerra del Pacífico]:
That is a good reference (from a third party). I write it again as a full text with translation, that you can improve.
-- Keysanger ( talk) 22:05, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
I added the sections "Argentine Position" and "Diplomatic efforts" in order to clarify the article. Also I moved to the new sections the paragraph the needed text.
-- Keysanger ( talk) 22:43, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
We have again a problem with the images, because the section "The war" is (still) too short. Should we delete or move an image? which? Do we need 2 images of the Huascar?
-- Keysanger ( talk) 22:48, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
I put already the reference to "Chile requested neutrality from Peru", it is absolutly correct.
Why do you say that it is incorrect?
If you have a seriously reference to what Peru requested from Chile, I ask you to put it, more, YOU HAVE TO PUT IT or we will be writting a biased article.
But, please, be carefull by your edits, yesterday you write twice the same paragraph.
-- Keysanger ( talk) 16:46, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
When war broke out Argentina sent a naval squadron to Rio Negro menacing the Chilean dominion of the Straits of Magellan. [1] However, it has been argued that the Chilean naval superiority was the main factor preventing Argentina from taking part in the war. [2]
HI ARAFAEL,
YOU DELETE MY REFERENCES FOR A THIRD TIME!
If you delete my references againg you will be banned of the english wikipedia.
-- Keysanger ( talk) 16:52, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
I take it easy and use the shift keys because it seems to me that Arafael ignores the basic rules of wikipedia.
I warned Arafael three times and he continued to delete my references. He told about other themes but he didn't apologize. We shouldn't accept such behavior and the most of the wikipedia writers see it also so.
References are the connection with the sources and wikipedia is nothing without sources. If we begin to delete the references to the sources then we will lost wikipedia.
We should request to have this page protected, so that we can settle some issues here before implementing any changes in the article.
Likeminass, given that your english is better than mine, please talk to a admin about this issue.
I recognize Arafael's work to improve the article, but he should take more time by his edits.
-- Keysanger ( talk) 16:55, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
1. POV Map. Puna de atacama incorrect. Without parallels. Previous map was designed among colaborators from Chile and Peru in [14] and [15]
2. Only one POV about 1873 alliance.
3. twice "On 6th February 1873 Peru and Bolivia..."
4. Only one POV : Occupation of Antofagasta; Other POV: Invasion of Antofagasta
5. This reference was removed http://www.memoriachilena.cl/archivos2/pdfs/MC0000309.pdf Los empresarios, la politica y la Guerra del Pacifico. Luis Ortega. Santiago de Chile. 1984. (Page 18. File Antony Gibbs & Sons AGA. Valparaiso to Londres. Private N 25. March 6, 1878)
Arafael ( talk) 13:08, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
I placed the clause about the secret pact within the reference. Leaving it in italic and under a separate paragraph might come across as Chilean POV. Likeminas ( talk) 12:53, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
Arafael I didn't remove your tag.
Regarding the issues you raise; 1) I agree. The other map seems to be better. So I would have no objection in reinstating that one.
2)If to Peru and Bolivia the treaty was "defensive" and to Chile was "secret and/or offensive" then the article should display ALL POV's.
4)This point is just petty. Nonetheless, I should say that invasion might be somewhat weasel. So I would just leave as it is.
Likeminas ( talk) 16:27, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
1) No one had said WHY the new map is wrong.
I say the map File:Pacifico1879.svg is wrong
the new map in contrast is better because:
Please say WHY do you find your map better! (Keysanger.)
1. It lacks the parallels. If you haven't noticed, this war heavily revolves around the parallels as one of the war disputes and border peace treaties. 2. The "Chilean territories before war" color looks confusing. I don't know if it is pointing to Argentina or to Chile. Also, there is no explanation if whether the territories in brown were disputed between Argentina and Chile (which I think they were).-- [|!*//MarshalN20\\*!|] ( talk) 02:51, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
It isn't a personal opinion. It is the Generic Mapping Tools border database. Many colaborators is warrant for nothing, if they don't use a good method. And they didn't use it. The today boundary in Puna de Atacama is actually very diferent as showed in the "Many colaborators" map.
The Bolivia-Argentina Boundary was modified after the war, but not directly because the war, it was complicated, Tarija, etc.. Therefore we can't use the black line, reserved for the "after war and because of war boundary". I used red. Your "Many colaborators" map also makes a diference between the Chile-Peru-Bolivia boundary (black line and no line) and the Peru-Bolivia and Bolivia-Argentina boundary (no line). Why is this method good in the collaborators-map and wrong in the GMT-map? Can you explain that?
Then increase it.: I increased the typesize of the "ARGENTINA" string and made another map. So, I did it. Accept it.
About the sources of the "Many colaborators" map File:Pacifico1879.svg:
In the description page we read:
We follow the link and find File:Borders-Bolivia-Chile-Peru-Before and after Pacfic War of 1879 SP.png and there is finally the source of the map: File:Borders_Chile_1879_and_2006.png. But there is the note:
This map is erroneus, use Image:Borders-Bolivia-Chile-Peru-Before and after Pacfic War of 1879 SP.png
So, someone shares partially my opinion about the map. But there are three other links:
The first link leads to a private website, there is no map.
The second link leads to Guerra-del-pacifico-01-a.svg. I took the colors from this map, but the map shows only the boundary before the war, and the Puna the Atacama zone is, I think, to big southwards.
The third map is the same I used to define the Peru-Bolivia Boundary before the war.
So, allegedly both maps should be the same. They are not, because the File:Pacifico1879.svg doesn't show the Rio Loa (and many others), also it doesn't show a scale.
All things considered, I repeat:
the new map in contrast is better because:
I think, this issue is finished. If anyone wants, we can call a Mediation about. -- Keysanger ( talk) 23:09, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
We agree that there were at least 3 Parties: Chile, Bolivia and Peru. For these three parties apply that the Treaty was secret. So, the treaty was secret. there is no doubt about that.
What about defensive?
May be that the pact was defensiv for Bolivia and Peru. But, was defensive for Chile? No, in no way. For Chile the pact was no defensive.
Every wiki editor can write "the pact was secret" because it was.
Please explain me WHY the pact was defensive for Chile, before you delete my text.
-- Keysanger ( talk) 22:22, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
Let's leave our
interpretations aside for a moment.
If the treaty was purely defensive from the viewpoint of Peru and Bolivia then references need to be provided stating just that. On the other hand, if the treaty was seen as secretive and/or offensive by Chile, then, the same rule applies. If we end up with both claims being verifiable by reliable sources (which I think we will) then, we should present both of them.
Likeminas ( talk) 13:54, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
Marschall wrote:
That is false. Iran says that they don't want to build the bomb. Do the international comunity believe that? Someone yes, others no. In our case Bolivia and Peru say the pact is defensive. That is a fact: they say that, the defensive character of the pact is not the fact.
Marschall wrote:
That is your personal POV. You say misunderstood, correct is:
I can see now that the problem is bigger than I supposed at the beginning of my contributions to this article. We have to begin with the finding of the facts and then write about the interpretation and consequences of the facts in the three countries. I considerer essential to describe following FACTS:
I will bring the references to this facts as soon as posible. If you think that there some issues needless, redundant or other needed facts, let us know.
Please, be cool, do not use so much bold in your comments.
Marschall: Who has said that Chile understood the secret treaty as aggresive? . Where did you read that?
-- Keysanger ( talk) 12:22, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
Likeminas, how have you positively established that the treaty was at least Defensive? -- Keysanger ( talk) 16:17, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
That don't change the fact that that is what they say. -- Keysanger ( talk) 18:28, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
Likeminas,
I don't need any proof, because I use the source of the pact. The pact says this is a defensive alliance and I corrected your contribution ("it was a defensive pact") with they called it a defensive alliance. You have to proof that the pact was defensive and you can't do it because that is, as Arfael contribution states, (lo storico chileno Barros Arana dice nella sua cosidetta Historia de la Guerra del Pacifico, che era un Trattato di alleanza offensiva e difensiva. Questo può dare una idea del modo) come si interpretano e riferiscono i fatti nel Chili. ("how they interpret")
If you say "defensive", that is a interpretation of the history, it is not a fact and if you want to publish that in english Wikipedia, you have to say "Diego says it was a defensive pact". Don't get confused with the name and the content of a idea. The Hitler-Stalin Pact was officially titled the Treaty of Non-aggression between Germany and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. In reality Hitler used the pact to prepare the Operation Barbarossa, that is, the invasion of the Soviet Union. Other example: Mission Accomplished said George W. Bush. Would you write an article and say "the mission was accomplished". No!, you would write, Bush said: Mission Accomplished.
Do you actually mean that is a proof?. For God's sake!. That is any thing but a historical study of the War of the Pacific, That is a list of documents kept in the Chilean Foreign Officce. Your Italian "proof" is a proof for me: That are interpretations of the pact, says the text.
So, I think, I have explained my reasons why I reverted your changes. I apologize for my english and request you urgently to correct it if you have time for.
Arafael,
stay cool. In my last contribution to the discussion, I put a list of issues I wanted to expand. Among others I wrote:
If you think that is incorrect, then explain first why do you think so. Wich issues should be assigned to an article, that is a controversial theme. I promise you, you will ignite the war again if you try to coerce my freedom to cooperate with Wikipedia.
By the way, the superiority of the Peruvian navy at the beginnig of the 1870s and the census of Antofagasta are not controversial. You find it overall.
May I move this discussion page to archive and open a new one?. We have advanced a lot at the last days, and the discussion is exciting but my DSL-provider will go bankrupt.
-- Keysanger ( talk) 10:18, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
Continuning the discussion, all I see here from your part Keysanger is a highly biased POV. You seem to think of yourself as some sort of heroic defender, with idiotic little phrases such as: "I promise you, you will ignite the war again if you try to coerce my freedom to cooperate with Wikipedia." Come on gentlemen! Wake up, we're not having a "mini war of the pacific" here. Three users, Likemina, Arafael, and me (MarshalN20), all agree that the neutral third party sources (from Peru, Bolivia, and Chile) demonstrate that the alliance between Peru and Bolivia was defensive. However, it will be impossible to work with people who will only respond: "I don't need any proof, because I use the source of the pact." If you don't want to contribute to this article in a peaceful manner, please do go play your little war games elsewhere Keysanger.-- //[*]MarshalN20[*]\\ ( talk) 02, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
Keysanger:
I’m afraid you do not understand how Wikipedia works. Or perhaps you do not want to understand it.
Look, it is a fairly simple process.
If there’s a reliable source that states (in this case) that the treaty was defensive, then, the claim that the treaty was, indeed, defensive is verifiable. Wikipedia not as concerned with this statement being “the truth” as much as it is concerned with it being verifiable.
Now, if you dispute the claim that the treaty was defensive, then, you need to provide another reliable source that contradicts it.
The documents from the Chilean Foreign ministry are reliable sources whether you like it or not.
Finally, you should know that your interpretations, analogies and snippy remarks won’t get you anywhere here. Only reliable sources will.
Likeminas ( talk) 15:57, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
| || Wikipedia is an encyclopedia incorporating elements of general and specialized encyclopedias, almanacs, and gazetteers. All articles must strive for verifiable accuracy: unreferenced material may be removed, so please provide references. Wikipedia is not the place to insert personal opinions, experiences, or arguments. Original ideas, interpretations, or research cannot be verified, and are thus inappropriate. Wikipedia is not a soapbox; an advertising platform; a vanity press; an experiment in anarchy or democracy; an indiscriminate collection of information; or a web directory. It is not a newspaper or a collection of source documents; these kinds of content should be contributed to the Wikimedia sister projects. |- | |- | || Wikipedia has a neutral point of view, which means we strive for articles that advocate no single point of view. Sometimes this requires representing multiple points of view, presenting each point of view accurately, providing context for any given point of view, and presenting no one point of view as "the truth" or "the best view". It means citing verifiable, authoritative sources whenever possible, especially on controversial topics. When a conflict arises regarding neutrality, declare a cool-down period and tag the article as disputed, hammer out details on the talk page, and follow dispute resolution. |- | |- | || Wikipedia is free content that anyone may edit. All of Wikipedia's text is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Sharealike 3.0 Unported License (CC-BY-SA); much of it is also licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL). It may be distributed or linked accordingly. Recognize that articles can be changed by anyone and no individual exclusively controls any specific article; therefore, any writing you contribute can be mercilessly edited and redistributed at will by the community. Do not infringe on copyright or submit work licensed in a way incompatible with Wikipedia's licensing. |- | |- | || Wikipedia has a code of conduct: Respect your fellow Wikipedians even when you may not agree with them. Be civil. Avoid conflicts of interest, personal attacks and sweeping generalizations. Find consensus, avoid edit wars, follow the three-revert rule, and remember that there are 6,824,798 articles on the English Wikipedia to work on and discuss. Act in good faith, never disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point, and assume good faith on the part of others. Be open and welcoming. |- | |- | || Wikipedia does not have firm rules besides the five general principles presented here. Be bold in editing, moving, and modifying articles. Although it should be the aim, perfection is not required. Do not worry about making mistakes. In most cases, all prior versions of articles are kept, so there is no way that you can accidentally damage Wikipedia or irretrievably destroy content. |}
well done Marschall!
But what you told there is again not the truth. You wrote:
I think, you mean me, but I didn't say the pact was aggressive. I said/say, that defensive/ofensive are interpretations of the pact and request to put it as that, interpretations: they called it defensive. I repeat for the third opinion my arguments given to Likeminas:
About your next statement:
I state only that we have to take care not to insult the intelligence of other people.
-- Keysanger ( talk) 12:47, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
Keysanger:
I’m afraid you do not understand how Wikipedia works. Or perhaps you do not want to understand it.
Look, it is a fairly simple process.
If there’s a reliable source that states (in this case) that the treaty was defensive, then, the claim that the treaty was, indeed, defensive is verifiable. Wikipedia not as concerned with this statement being “the truth” as much as it is concerned with it being verifiable.
Now, if you dispute the claim that the treaty was defensive, then, you need to provide another reliable source that contradicts it.
The documents from the Chilean Foreign ministry are reliable sources whether you like it or not.
Finally, you should know that your interpretations, analogies and snippy remarks won’t get you anywhere here. Only reliable sources will.
Likeminas ( talk) 15:58, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
Likeminas, Marshal,
you continue to ignore my arguments and instead use Ad hominem.
Under the title Continuning the discussion Marshall contributed with [25]:
Likeminas violates the Wikipedia:Assume good faith with [26] I’m afraid you do not understand how Wikipedia works. Or perhaps you "do not want to understand it".
That aren't the appropriate terms for for a discussion under wikipedians. I am not accustomed to that.
Please, stop it, thank you. -- Keysanger ( talk) 21:08, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
You continue attacking me [27]:
I see you have problems to strike the right note. Please, inform yourself about the Wikipedia:Civility. Thank you Marshal, -- Keysanger ( talk) 19:19, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
Do you agree that the pact was secret regards Chile?. Please answer this question without personal attacks. -- Keysanger ( talk) 21:14, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
The pact was secret to all nations in the planet, except for Peru and Bolivia. There was no specific nation targeted. Why are you trying to make Chile seem a victim?-- //[*]MarshalN20[*]\\ ( talk) 19:46, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
Do you affirm that Argentina was not informed about the pact? Do you have reliable sources for? -- Keysanger ( talk) 20:37, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
Was Argentina notified of the secret alliance only after Chile and Bolivia began to increment on their border disputes, or was intended in the text of the pact to invite other countries? -- Keysanger ( talk) 19:10, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
Was Argentina notified of the secret alliance only after Chile and Bolivia began to increment on their border disputes, or was intended in the text of the pact to invite other countries? -- Keysanger ( talk) 22:54, 9 July 2009 (UTC)