Talk:War of the Pacific

Recent edits

I am sure that this is something worth discussing. The recent massive edits done by Keysanger, [1], when carefully analyzed are all systematically pushing a non-neutral POV in the article. Removing several bits of information for no good reason. I would like to revert to the previous state of the article, but first I would like to know the opinions of others.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 19:23, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

To avoid wasting anyone's time, here are the edits:

• Removals done by Keysanger

1. "On April 5, after Peru resisted this demand, Chile declared war on both nations."
2. "After the War of the Pacific, Peru was left without saltpeter production, the Chilean production decreased to 15%, and Great Britain's production rose to 55%."
3. "In 1874, Chile and Bolivia replaced the 1866 boundary treaty with a treaty granting Bolivia the authority to collect all tax revenue between the 23rd and 24th parallels, fixing the tax rates on Chilean companies for 25 years and calling for Bolivia to open up." (bold is removed text)

• Changes done by Keysanger

1. "Peru acknowledged casus foederis" (with citation) changed to "Peru declared war on Chile" (without citation)
2. "the treaty" changed to "a secret treaty known as"

This is without mentioning all of the references he has deleted. I don't know why he is doing this, but would like to believe these are not edits done in response to the past discussions which he is still arguing despite yet another editor is recommending him to stop ([2]). Best regards.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 19:42, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

I see the editions, and reverse the last one. This has been enough, there is nothing to discuss; we must do something to stops his intentions to turn this article not to his POV, but to the official Chilean POV. Greetings. --Ian (CloudAOC) | ^Talk 20:31, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

I wouldn't call it "Chilean POV", since his edits are merely promoting his own point of view. There is no reason as to why he should delete sourced material and references. All of this because he didn't get his way on one discussion? I suggest we return the article to the last version edited by Alex. As to what should be done with Keysanger, I am not sure what steps to take at this point. The ball is in his side of the court.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 20:36, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Well, I'm going to made the reversion. And I'll do it so many times as necessary to keep the article free from his "truth". Greetings.--Ian (CloudAOC) | ^Talk 20:41, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm glad you're taking a good initiative. I still would like to hear Keysanger's reasoning.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 20:49, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

In fairness, there is nothing wrong with Keysanger making bold edits - and there is nothing wrong with others reverting them. It's better than raising "issues" that he hasn't firstly tried to fix himself. Now that the edits have been reverted we can discuss them. For my part, I agree with the reverts. We should not be asserting that he is "pushing a POV" - even if it appears that way - per WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF. Alex Harvey (talk) 06:09, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

I have been reviewing Keysanger's edits carefully. In this edit [3] I am also puzzled why we have a footnote here. Are we simply establishing the fact that Chile occupied Antofagasta? If so, I would move it to the end of the sentence or paragraph. Alex Harvey (talk) 11:13, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

I have also restored this edit [4] which I agreed with. @Keysanger, if you don't want people to revert your changes it would help if you added edit summaries. If it was me I would have simply reverted all your changes in a single go based on the fact that you'd made contentious edits without edit summaries. Alex Harvey (talk) 11:16, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Regarding the Antofagasta footnote. I have tried to remove that as well in the past, but (if I'm not mistaken) it was Keysanger the one that kept placing it back in. That now he is trying to remove it as well...I suppose it's a good move on his part. I also agree that it is best for Keysanger to make edits and then be challenged about them, but making such large changes in the controversial article really does require some sort of explanation (edit summaries). Best regards.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 13:50, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

The end of the Peruvian Navy

The previous version of this article states the following text:

"Chile set the Peruvian fleet on fire and destroyed or appropriated Callao's coastal defense material."

Having as a reference:

• Basadre 1964, p. 2538
• Calero y Moreira, Jacinto (1794). Mercurio peruano. Peru: Biblioteca Nacional del Perú. pp. 44–46. Retrieved July 22, 2009. {{cite book}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)

But this line is false, is well know fact than the Peruvian Navy officers scuttled their remaining ships after the fall of San Juan and Miraflores, the Chilean navy never put "on fire" the remaining ships because they found it already burning and sunken. I'll remove it and replaced with a proper text, and about the sources, the Basadre books don't stated that (I have the entire collection). I'll proper source this in a few days. Greetings. --Ian (CloudAOC) | ^Talk 00:45, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

This is a proper source:

• Paz Soldán, Juan Pedro (1919). "El hundimiento de la Escuadra Peruana - 16 de enero de 1881". El Mercurio Peruano - Revista Mensual de Ciencias Sociales y Letras. III (13). Lima, Perú: 44–47. Retrieved 2011-09-24. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help).

Who cites "El Mercurio Peruano" of 1794 obviously ignores than existed more than one publication entitled with that name. I'm reading the entire article again, just in case. Regards. --Ian (CloudAOC) | ^Talk 01:15, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Interesting information. Nonetheless, perhaps it would be best to find a much more stable source than the blog?--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 01:23, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Well, the source is the hardcopy of the journal stored in our National Library and in the UNMSM, the blog provides to the readers a copy of text from the source itself, if they can't obtain access to the original source. Regards. --Ian (CloudAOC) | ^Talk 01:38, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Looking around

Hi Alex, Cloudac, MarshalN20, Chiton,

Allow me to congratule you and myself for the work we are doing. I think we all have done a good job until now. A lot of controversial issues have been resolved, not as good as every one of us would like but we have reached amicable and acceptable agreements.

Article improvement has been slowed by disagreements, seemingly endless debates and careless changes and reverts. I have learnt a lot about this "Andean Tragedy" and I hope you did also.

The attitude of some editors (me included) has been far from perfect but at least we have kept the discussion in the talk page and averted stupid edit wars.

I still can't understand how Alex is still there, dealing with a group of unflexible editors, some of them with low English skills in a theme that he never had heard and probably never was interested and despite strong critisism from over all sides. Thank you, Alex. Stay there.

You may have noted that issues are becoming less controversial and easier to resolve. I ask you all for a continued effort of patient and comunicative research, cautious changes and exhaustive edit summaries, and above all, an exact following of the Wikipedia rules in order to get a better article. I may remind you that an agreement doesn't mean the extirpation of our brain but an extension of our mind.

--Best regards, Keysanger (what?) 14:32, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

That's nice Keysanger. Please just finish the "issues" so that we can remove the article's "problem tags" and all get on with our lives.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 14:40, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Thank you MarshalN20. We remember that our aim is not to finish the issues but to improve the article. --Best regards, Keysanger (what?) 15:16, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Keysanger, but, to improve the article we need to close the pending issues. Besides, who of us have a "low English skills", because if are you speaking to me, you're right, this is not my native language, but I must say than my english is far from "low", ok? Thanks a lot for your words, really. Regards. --Ian (CloudAOC) | ^Talk 20:15, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for this Keysanger. Let's hope we can just get on with fixing the article. Alex Harvey (talk) 07:00, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Issue 3: Repase references

Unresolved

For the "repase"-Theory are shown two references. The first one is a unknown page (HTTP 404) and the second one is a primary source of Andres Caceres and as such non-available for Wikipedia. Moreover, the section dont mention the given promise of not to fight against the Chilean government. --Keysanger (what?) 08:40, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

The information provided by Caceres is backed up by secondary sources, therefore his primary account stands. Added that the "Repaso" is not a theory, but a fact.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 19:09, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Please, write the complete paragraph that you mean support your sentences and delete the tag only when the discussion is finished. Best regards, --Keysanger (what?) 22:33, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

I will not do the work for you. I have done enough by providing the sources and page number. If you wish to improve the citations, feel free to do so on your own.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 18:51, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

You HAVE to do the work. And through reliable sources and not a lot of biased "testimonies". Best Regards, Keysanger (what?) 19:02, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

No, all that is required of me is to provide the source and page in which you can find the information. Anything else you want to do is up to you. I will not do the work for you.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 19:10, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

I can give you a cite from WP:BURDEN: The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material.. --Best regards, Keysanger (what?) 13:09, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

I have already provided the evidence. You're trying to make me do your work.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 14:19, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't believe the issue here is reliably sourced mention of repaso (the material definitely should be included) but the non neutral way the material is placed and presented.

The following paragraph appears at the end of the 'strategy' section:

The three nations claimed to adhere to the Geneva Red Cross Convention to protect the war wounded, prisoners, refugees, civilians, and other non-combatants.[96] However, during the war, Chile commonly ordered a repaso (or repase), a method "to completely kill the dead" by executing all soldiers, regardless of injuries, of the opposing army left in the battlefied.[97] After the Battle of Tacna, Chilean troops went as far as to enter field hospitals and execute all soldiers of the opposing Peruvian and Bolivian armies.[98][99] The repaso further incremented the number of Peruvian casualties in the battles of San Juan, Chorrillos, and Miraflores.[100] In the aftermath of the Battle of Huamachuco, Chilean Colonel Alejandro Gorostiaga ordered a repase under the pretext that they formed part of an irregular army and could therefore not be considered prisoners of war.[101][102] Peruvian Colonel Leoncio Prado was among the few soldiers who were not killed during the Huamachuco repase,[103] but was executed shortly thereafter.

It seems the facts are selected here to promote a view that Chile's conduct was barbaric. The facts should be included, but there needs to be a deeper analysis of the repaso. Why did Chile do this? Whose idea was it? What were they trying to achieve? And so on. Alex Harvey (talk) 10:41, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Regardless of how much explanation is made, the repaso will continue to be a sad story in the course of the war.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 14:07, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Alex, again are you making comments like "the facts are selected", again if you don't know about the facts of this war you can't give a opinion like this... If the facts seem "barbaric" is because they were barbaric, can you understand that? Can you understand than the Chilean troops came to Peru to burn, loot and rape every town and city in its way? This is not about your opinion or our opinion about the facts of the war, is about the facts itself. Greetings. --Ian (CloudAOC) | ^Talk 03:50, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Ian, what I'm saying is this paragraph doesn't begin to satisfy my historical interest - it is plain that it has been written by someone with an anti-Chilean axe to grind. If I was the reader, I would flag this paragraph as probably unreliable and do my own investigation. That's not good for you if you want the reader to regard this as accurate. I am not suggesting that the Chilean acts weren't "barbaric". I am sure that some Peruvian actions were barbaric too - this is normal in all wars. It just isn't a serious analysis. So I'm suggesting, go deeper & improve the article. Perhaps I'll look into it further if I get time. Alex Harvey (talk) 11:34, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Issue 4: Peru enter the conflict

{{citations missing}}, {{POV}}

Unresolved

The current version [5] states without any references that:

• Peru entered the affair in 1879, initially attempting to mediate the dispute, but, when Chile invaded the Bolivian port city of Antofagasta on February 14, 1879, Bolivia sought the activation of its secret "Treaty of Mutual Defense" with Peru.

That is a very personal and biased view of the matter. Fact is that Peru signed the (offensive or defensive) Pact with Bolivia in 1873, and in 1872 Peru had declared that "Peru cannot be indifferent to the occupation of Bolivian territories" (Farcau, p.37-38). Moreover, Peru had nationalized the Salitreras and looked to build a monopol over the salitre and guano. --Best regards, Keysanger (what?) 10:27, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Andrew Graham Yool (Page 129): "The increase in duties on extracted nitrate escalated the conflict from commercial dispute to war. A Chilean fleet blockaded the southern Bolivian port of Antofagasta, which was populated largely by Chilean nationals who controlled much of the local commerce and were most numerous in the city's middle and upper classes. Initially, Peru managed to avoid involvement."

End of story.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 15:40, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the source. Read the complete page 129 of Andrew Graham Yool:

The nitrate deposits in the Atacama desert were matter of dispute between Chile, Peru and Bolivia throughout the last quarter of the nineteenth century.

and in page 130:

The interest of Peru in the affarir is apparent. ... more than a dangerous rival to the Peruvian article now the property of the [Peruvian] state

and below:

The Atacama desert - the subject of the dispute - had been the source of conflict between Chile Bolivia and Peru

More sources:

• Herbert Millington, American Diplomacy and the War of the Pacific, Copyright by Columbia University Press, 1948, Published in Great Britain and India by Goeffrey Cumberlege, Oxford University Press, London and Bombay, page 21: Peru interests were vitally involved
• "The Ten Cents War", Bruce W. Farcau, Praeger Publishers, 2000, page 37-8: Peru cannot be indifferent to the occupation (citing a Peruvian declaration jule 1872)

--Best regards, Keysanger (what?) 10:57, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

There exists a difference between Peruvian interests and actual Peruvian involvement. I may be interested in music, but that does not make me a musician. I may be interested in knowing what goes on in your head, but that does not mean I am actually conducting a psychological analysis on you.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 13:22, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Put the facts on the article: the declaration of the foreign minister, the aim to monoplize the salitreras, and the other comments of the given sources, etc. --Best regards, Keysanger (what?) 10:20, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Issue 5: the 10 cent tax

{{POV}}

Resolved

Extended content

The current version [6] of the article states that: and Bolivia imposed a 10 cent tax on the Antofagasta Nitrate & Railway Company The article doesn't mention that the 10 cents were a clear violation of the treaty of 1874. --Best regards, Keysanger (what?) 10:35, 23 August 2011 (UTC) It's not a "clear violation" of the 1874 treaty. Bolivia's argument was well-crafted to avoid such a situation. The current version neither approves of the 10 cent tax as legitimate or illegal. Therefore, this issue is yet another pointless one.--MarshalN20 | Talk 03:23, 28 August 2011 (UTC) The article must say what both sides thought about the new tax. --Best regards, Keysanger (what?) 18:58, 12 September 2011 (UTC) The article already explains the situation in the "Crisis" section. Perhaps it would be best if the section was renamed "Taxation crisis" or "Taxation controversy".--MarshalN20 | Talk 03:08, 13 September 2011 (UTC) Exactly. why is this an issue if it's already explained in another section of the article? --Ian (CloudAOC) | Talk 05:50, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Issue 10: Grau

{{peacock}}

Unresolved

The current version [7] of the article states that:

• Captain Miguel Grau Seminario (known as the "Knight of the Seas" due to his chivalry)

What is the encyclopedic worth of this information?. Should we also add that Patricio Lynch was called "Red Prince"?. That is Folklore and doesn't belong to the en:WP. --Best regards, Keysanger (what?) 11:17, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

The fix is simple. All that is needed is an explanation: (1) how Grau ordered the saving of surviving members of the Esmeralda instead of killing them with bayonets (which several navies, including the Chilean Navy, took as practice), (2) how Grau set the Chilean sailors back on their land instead of taking them as PoW, (3) how Grau sent the property of the Chilean captain that made a suicide jump on his ship back to the captain's wife, (4) how Grau ordered the protection of the water towers in the desert populations of the Atacama for the sake of protecting the civilians (destroying the water towers would have hurt both the Chilean soldiers and the civilian population), etc. Hence why he is a notable military figure in the conflict for all three sides involved. How does Lynch compare to Grau?--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 20:05, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

What is the encyclopedic worth of this information?. --Best regards, Keysanger (what?) 14:49, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Did you read the battle of Iquique article Keysanger? Its full of that you called "useless information", and even worst, unsourced phrases attributed to some of its protagonists, like Grau. Why you don't edit it with the same "intensity" than this one?. The title "Knight of the Seas" is not only wide know but also well sourced, and there is no point of comparaton between Lynch, a well-proven merciless looter, and Grau.Cloudaoc (talk) 15:14, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

I repeat the question: What is the encyclopedic worth of this information?. --Best regards, Keysanger (what?) 08:48, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

As I wrote before, the fix is simply to explain why Miguel Grau is called the "Knight of the Seas". Miguel Grau is one of the most notable figures of the war due to his achievements during the naval campaign, that is his encyclopedic worth. Neither Lynch or Pratt did anything comparable to what Grau achieved in terms of military conduct and strategy.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 00:29, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes good idea. Alex Harvey (talk) 14:57, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

It is a bad idea. I don't want to present the reader Peruvian or Chilean folklore. If you must write it then you can use the page of Grau for. --Best regards, Keysanger (what?) 11:42, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

This is not a matter of what you want to present, and much less is it a matter of folklore. Grau's deeds are verifiable and of outstanding notability in a military perspective (a single ship holding off an entire invasion is quite remarkable). His chivalry is also of notability; after all, he could have killed civilians or defeated soldiers (akin to Chile's decision-making), but instead played by the book. Grau is honored by all militaries in the conflict (including Chile), and that alone demonstrates his notability.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 02:14, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

May be or may be not. But that is not the point.

The point is that this is an article about the WotP and many persons involved in the events had an outstanding perfomance and/or an outstanding failure. Do we want to write the perfomance/failure of Pierola, Prado, Daza, Buendia, Bolognesi, Caceres, Montero, Iglesias, Moore, Lavalle, etc?

If you want to do that, do it in the article about this person, not in the article about the War of the Pacific. --Best regards, Keysanger (what?) 10:47, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Your argument is without foundation. The proper weight must be provided to the notable figures in the conflict. Bolognesi, Avaraoa, and Prat all notably sacrificed their lives in the conflict, and a proper mention to their deed is mentioned within the article.

It's not my fault that Miguel Grau happens to be Peruvian (which is what obviously bothers you), and that his actions during the war are so important. Let us remember that it was not until Grau's defeat at Angamos that Chile was finally able to begin "the end" of the conflict. All major history books hold Grau's defeat as a major point in the conflict.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 14:13, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Marshal, show us the reliable sources that give this material weight in the context, not of Miguel Grau's biography, but of the War of the Pacific. It seems you have made a good argument but haven't supported it with reliable sources. Alex Harvey (talk) 06:41, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

I'll provide a whole article ([8]). It's from the Spanish Wikipedia, but it has bibliography and citations. There's even this awesome image from the time ([9]), where the news bulletins all show Miguel Grau's "Huascar" being cited in different places at the same time. The image is from 1879, and it captures the hype over Miguel Grau's deeds in the war. Not many people take it into account, but the actions of Huascar and its defeat by Chile's renewed naval strategy had much impact on The Influence of Sea Power Upon History.

• Here is one source: "'The Gentleman fo the Seas', is a glorious phrase which eternally accompanies Admiral Miguel Grau, and which is recognized not only by Peruvians and Chileans but also by other nations which have seen in Don Miguel the supreme teaching of loving those who are your "enemies", save those fallen in the seas as a product from an conflict which had no reason to exist, because they were fulfilling their role in life" ([10]).
• Here is another source: "The Huascar, under the command of Admiral Miguel Grau, became a serious problem for Chile. Three times it entered Antofagasta firing at Chilean ships; captured two merchant ships in Cobija (27 May); faced the Blanco Encalada and Magallanes on June 3rd; the 10th of that month captured the Matias Cousiño in Iquique; the 23rd of July captured the Rimac transport which held the "Escudaron de Carabineros de Yungay", nearby Antofagasta. The runs of the monitor kept the entire Chilean navy in alert and filled with indignation the public opinion. [...] The 1st of October [the Chilean navy] went to Arica in search of the Huascar whose capture was made indispensable to initiate the land campaign" ([11])

I can provide some more if that will appease Keysanger. Best regards.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 15:09, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

We know from others discussion that Farcau, Sater are the best neutral authors regarding the War of the Pacific. Can you bring some citations from them?, or at least citations from aoutside Chile-Peru-Bolivia?. They are always so, so, how can I say ... Folkloric?. --Best regards, Keysanger (what?) 20:54, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Your disdain for scholarly work is both an insult to the field and to the Wikipedia project.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 14:51, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

While Keysanger's superior tone is - once again - unhelpful, I agree that it is preferrable to find sources that are not from Chile-Peru-Bolivia since that removes the nationalist bias. To that end, I have searched 'miguel grau "gentleman of the seas"' in Google Books and can't find any references except in two travel guides. Searching for 'Miguel Grau "knight of the seas"' leads to four hits, none specifically on this nickname. Is there another English translation I should consider? This might suggest we should not include the nickname in this article - although Miguel Grau himself is obviously an important historical figure in the War of the Pacific. Alex Harvey (talk) 08:14, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

I found sources in Google Books when I searched [Miguel Grau "Knight"] (140 results) and [Miguel Grau "Gentleman"] (54). The English sources mention his nickname ("Gentleman of the Seas") and explain why he is given the nickname. Here are a few:

Pam Barret (Peru, Page 176): "Admiral Grau was known as "Gentleman Grau" because of his attempts to get more supplies for his men, and his determination to rescue the Chilean sailors who were left floundering in the water after each battle."

Luna Guinot Dolores' (Page 320): "Peruvian Commander, Mr. Miguel Grau, showing signs of chivalry, after the battle, he transferred into his ship the Chileans rescued alive, and to those fell in action for their being buried in Iquique. [...] Grau deserved recognition and general appreciation of the Chileans because of this act of noble character."

Grau's chivalric deeds in the naval campaign are of high notability. I am only proposing to include one sentence on it, nothing more.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 01:30, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Hi Alex,

M20 has given us the source of the sentence. It is this book [12]. It is a Peruvian Childrenbook, no pagenumbers. Zou have to search for "Caballero de los mares". It is approx. in the middle.

Alex, do you think that it is correct to present such reference in a highly controverted article?. --Best regards, Keysanger (what?) 14:05, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

It's not a children's book. Better sources exist in Spanish, but I took this one since it had a good explanation of who and what Miguel Grau did during the conflict (his importance). The book is an autobiography of the author, and the section which I take took the quote from focuses on his understanding of the events which took place during the War of the Pacific (especifically the Battle of Arica).--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 01:37, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

I'll have to say given Keysanger's attitude that he only needs to consider outside input if it agrees with him I am somewhat reluctant to say anything here, but in the interests of the project, I still agree that weight for the nickname in the context of the War of the Pacific hasn't been established. I am sure that Grau is a hero to the Peruvian people but adding the nickname gives an appearance of Peruvian bias. Unless, that is, some scholarly non-Peruvian sources have also noted the nickname. Alex Harvey (talk) 09:10, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Should the nickname be better it is mentioned only on Graus own article or the naval campaign article? since this is the main article on the war we have to be selective and leave less important information for other articles. Chiton magnificus (talk) 10:38, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

I really would like to know if anyone can bring up another person who is respected and honored by all three sides of the conflict? As I said, that is notable enough to be explained in at least one sentence...and that sentence should include the nickname.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 12:02, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

But do all three sides use the nickname? If it helps you might like to consider the article on World War II and consider the portrayal of Winston Churchill. Of course Churchill was an extraordinary person - but there is no reliably sourced praise for Churchill in the article - just facts relevant to the war. Alex Harvey (talk) 12:43, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

I understand your point Alex. Yes, I do believe all three sides of the conflict use the nickname. Perhaps it would be best if we worked around a proposal to replace the current text? I propose the following:

On 21 May 1879, during the Battle of Iquique the Huáscar sank the Esmeralda and ended Chile's blockade of the Peruvian port. Meanwhile, while chasing away the Covadonga, the Peruvian Independencia wrecked near the shallow coastal waters of Punta Gruesa. The naval battle of Iquique gave a tactical victory to Peru: the blockade was defeated and one Chilean ship was sunk and the other retreated. Nevertheless, it was a pyrrhic victory; losing the Independencia, one of Peru's most important ships, was a fatal blow. When news of the defeat reached Santiago, the Esmeralda's crew and commander Arturo Prat became national heroes for their bravery. Captain Miguel Grau's decision to save shipwrecked Chilean sailors and send his formal condolences to Prat's wife earned him widespread recognition to all sides of the conflict, dubbing him the "Gentleman of the Seas".

I would appreciate comments for improvement.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 01:02, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

You are repeating the issue. --Best regards, Keysanger (what?) 10:07, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

There is no issue, even the Prat's widow call Grau a "Knight" (not a "gentleman") in the letter written by her in gratitude for the returning of the Captain Prat personal belongings after the battle. Can you deny that? In fact, I'm going to put this fact in the Battle of Iquique article, in the aftermath section. What is wrong with mentioning here? Just because you don't like it? I repeat Keysanger, what do you want is irrelevant, this is not your article. Greetings. --Ian (CloudAOC) | ^Talk 16:45, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Granting Grau that litle extra attention in the article opens up for adding info on the Red Prince, the last viceroy of Peru, "Pratiotism", Etnocacerism and so on. Lets have a less redundant clean cut article with details (yes, Grau's knight hood is a detail in a war that left tens of thousand of dead and have political and economic consequences up to this day) left to other article to specify on. Chiton magnificus (talk) 18:48, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

The factor being left out is Grau's significance in comparisson to the other "heroes" of the conflict. While people such as Bolognesi (Peru), Abaroa (Bolivia), and Lynch (Chile) are only recognized in their own countries for their actions, Miguel Grau is the only figure out of the whole conflict who is widely revered by all sides involved.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 21:09, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Issue 13: which discomfited the Chileans, However

{{POV}}, {{Weasel words}}

Unresolved

The current version [13] of the article states that:

• Previous Peruvian demands had favored Bolivia, and Lavalle denied knowing about the existence of the treaty, which discomfited the Chileans. However, not only did Peru hold a poorly equipped military, but also faced a financial crisis which prevented the possibility of any war preparations

I cite from WP:EDITORIALIZING:

• More subtly, editorializing can produce implications not supported by the sources. Words such as but, however, and although may imply a relationship between two statements where none exists, perhaps inappropriately undermining the first or giving undue precedence to the credibility of the second.

Both sentences are true ("Previous Peruvian…" and "Peru hold a…"). But the quality of the Peruvian army wasn't an impediment for Peru to went to war, therefore the "however" is a weasel word.

--Best regards, Keysanger (what?) 07:44, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

I find it a joke that you keep making issues out of grammar when you have previously stated that you aren't an expert in English. The whole text reads as follows:

The Chilean government stalled, suspecting that Peru's attempt was not bona fide, and that it was only trying to delay until it completed its war preparations. Previous Peruvian demands had favored Bolivia, and Lavalle denied knowing about the existence of the treaty, which discomfited the Chileans. However, not only did Peru hold a poorly equipped military, but also faced a financial crisis which prevented the possibility of any war preparations.

Given the whole text, the word "however" is correctly placed. I've bolded the whole section for which the "however" applies.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 14:32, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

It is not the grammar, MarshallN20, it is WP:EDITORIALIZING:

• More subtly, editorializing can produce implications not supported by the sources. Words such as but, however, and although may imply a relationship between two statements where none exists, perhaps inappropriately undermining the first or giving undue precedence to the credibility of the second.

--Best regards, Keysanger (what?) 15:01, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm still laughing.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 15:15, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Really, an effort from both of you to assume good faith and remain polite would be helpful to more quickly resolve these problems. Keysanger's English may not be perfect but he is relating the point to our policies. He is right that "however" can be misused and he feels that in this instance, "however" throws doubt on the assertion that "Chileans were discomfited". It might be a valid, if subtle, point. The solution might be, again, for Keysanger to propose a different wording. Alex Harvey (talk) 02:04, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

"However" is clearly being used to contrast the position that Peru was preparing for war. In other words: "The Chilean government stalled, suspecting that Peru's attempt was not bona fide, and that it was only trying to delay until it completed its war preparations. [...] However, not only did Peru hold a poorly equipped military [...]." Nothing more, nothing less.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 02:21, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Well, if "however" refers two sentences back the previous sentence could perhaps be in parentheses. To be honest, I had to read it more than once to work out what it was saying. I also feel that what follows "However" is worded too strongly. Saying "not only" suggests that the Chilean distrust was silly. Alex Harvey (talk) 04:34, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Chile stalled negotiations suspecting that Peru's attempt was not bona fide. The Chilean public saw Peruvian mediation as favorable to Bolivia, and were discomfoted by Lavalle's denial of an alliance treaty with Bolivia. Chile thought Peru was only trying to delay time until it completed its war preparations. However, Peru held a poorly equipped military and faced a financial crisis which prevented the possibility of any war preparations.

Problem solved?--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 04:45, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

From my point of view, a big improvement in readability. Alex Harvey (talk) 07:47, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Thank you Alex.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 13:55, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Proposal:

Chile stalled negotiations suspecting that Peru's attempt was not bona fide. The Chilean public saw Peruvian mediation as favorable to Bolivia, and were discomfoted by Lavalle's denial of an alliance treaty with Bolivia. Chile thought Peru was only trying to delay time until it completed its war preparations. However, Peru held a poorly equipped military and faced a financial crisis which prevented the possibility of any war preparations.

However produce implications not supported by the source and there is a special section to compare belligerents armies. --Best regards, Keysanger (what?) 14:40, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

No Keysanger, your proposal is clearly one-sided.

Supporting sources for my proposal

• William Skuban (Page 12): The Peruvian government, fearful of being dragged into a war for which it was ill-prepared, attempted to mediate the dispute.
• Jane Holligan de Díaz-Límaco (Page 25): As the economic crisis hit home, the country tripped into the most catastrophic war of its history, the War of the Pacific.
• Edwin Montefiore Borchard (Page 13): The Lavalle mission has also been charged by Chileans with constituting a mere cloak to gain time for the war preparations Peru was then undertaking. Much reading fails to substantiate the charge. While Peru doubtless realized the delicacy of the situation, she was in such financial distress--a fact which may also in lesser degree be asserted of Chile--that she could make no real preparations. She had not a single good naval vessel and her army consisted of about 5000 poorly equipped men. The total unpreparedness of Peru and her inability to take any effective measures between February 12 and April 5, 1879, which Chile has charged her with undertaking, are attested by Lieut. Mason of the United States Navy in a report to the Navy Department. Nevertheless, it cannot fairly be said that she at that time realized her military inferiority.

These are pretty clear, I suppose?--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 15:59, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

No. --Best regards, Keysanger (what?) 15:53, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Agree Is quite clear, and again, Keysanger thinks than just saying "no" is enough to stop everything than he doesn´t like. Greetings. --Ian (CloudAOC) | ^Talk 20:13, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Issue 18: Mutual defense pact

{{POV}}

Unresolved

Regarding the current version of the article [14], the mutual defense pact was called "mutual defense pact" but the historians deiagree about its character defensive or offensive. Hence, the article has to say the difference and in no case present the pact as defensive. --Best regards, Keysanger (what?) 12:05, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

I've seen quite a number of reliable sources that simply describe this pact as a "mutual defense pact". I also don't agree that the wording says anything one way or the other about whether it was in reality "offensive" or "defensive". Sater simply describes it as a "defensive alliance": "It was fear of Chile's purchase of warships that encouraged Lima to enter into a defensive alliance with Bolivia in 1879" (Andean Tragedy, p. 36). On p. 37, Sater implies that even the upset Chilean public agreed that it was a "defensive alliance". In Farcau, we find the same. On p. 38, "As a defensive alliance, the 1873 treaty was really rather thin". He goes on say essentially that it was a treaty without "teeth". On p. 44 Farcau attributes the idea of "hostile alliance" as only "the official Chilean argument" - suggesting that he doesn't think even Chilean politicians sincerely believed this. He seems to regard the official Chilean rhetoric as disingenuous. So I'm struggling to see how a simple statement of a simple fact that a treaty was a "mutual defense pact" can be seriously regarded as POV. Alex Harvey (talk) 13:13, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

I think Alex has pretty much taken this issue down with direct evidence.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 13:33, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Right, then there is no problem to say that the pact was called defensive. I correct the wordig of the article. --Best regards, Keysanger (what?) 19:21, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

No, what this means is there is no problem to leave the wording exactly as it appears in reliable sources - unless you want to make an argument for why "known as" is a better wording. Alex Harvey (talk) 03:43, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Issue 19: Secret treaty

{{POV}}{{confusing}}

Unresolved

Regarding the current version of the article [15], the so-called treaty of mutual defense was secret and the article has to state this fact. --Best regards, Keysanger (what?) 12:05, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

This is an interesting issue, and I'm glad you finally raised it. Let's take a close analysis to the matter:

1. The treaty is not titled "secret".
2. That the treaty was signed in secrecy is true, but does that make it secret?
3. Dates' : The Mutual Defense Treaty was signed in 1873. Chile had a copy of the treaty since 1874. Argentina and Brazil already knew about it by then as well.
4. If everyone involved in the situation (Bolivia, Chile, and Peru in the short spectrum; Brazil and Argentina in the wide spectrum) already knew about the treaty for nearly 5 (five) years prior to the start of the war, is the treaty actually secret?

Conclusion: The Mutual Defense Pact of 1873 was signed in secrecy, but it was not a secret treaty as everyone knew about it by 1874 (a mere year later). Chile pretended not to know about the treaty, and that's a completely different story. Best regards.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 13:42, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't really agree that because all parties knew about it that stops a treaty which was concluded in secret from being a "secret treaty". The trick would be to word it in such a way that the reader isn't confused into believing that Chile didn't know about it at the time it was activated. I can't see myself that simply omitting this detail from the lead doesn't makes a huge difference. Alex Harvey (talk) 10:17, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps we could use the term "secretly-signed" where appropiate?--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 20:46, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I think than the term "secretly-signed" is more appropiate. Greetings. --Ian (CloudAOC) | ^Talk 00:03, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

I think there is a lot of confusion about the secret alliance. I moved two paragraphs and added one more to a new subsection. I hope you agree. If not, please, open a new issue. --Best regards, Keysanger (what?) 19:39, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

My edits have been reverted. Please don't delete the "multiple issues"- tag until the ssue is resolved. --Best regards, Keysanger (what?) 07:44, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

The secret Alliance is a very complicated issue, hence I created a new sub-section with 3 paragraphs. I hope that will help us to find a solution. --Best regards, Keysanger (what?) 07:53, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Please stop disrupting the article for the saking of making a WP:POINT. The Background section is already in summary-style, per WP:SUMMARY, and no necessity exists to create stub sub-sections within it.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 13:51, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Issue 22: Chile declared war, Peru announced the casus foederis or are not mentioned

{{POV}}

Resolved

Extended content

Regarding the current version of the article [16], and subject to the provisions of the ongoing discussion about the Bolivian Declaration of War, the lede doesn't mention that Peru declared war on Chile, (besides use the Euphemism "to announce the state of war" to hide the Bolivian Beclaration of War) and in the section "Peruvian mediation" again doesn't mention the Peruvian Declaration of War. --Best regards, Keysanger (what?) 12:20, 25 September 2011 (UTC) As far as the lead is concerned, it is a trivial detail that Peru reciprocated the declaration of war and I would suggest keeping it out for the sake of not cluttering the lead. For the body, I suggest, "The next day, Peru reciprocated and declared war, acknowledging casus foederis". Alex Harvey (talk) 13:19, 25 September 2011 (UTC) Peru did not declare war. Can Keysanger please provide the text of the Peruvian declaration of war? I can and have already provided (in the link within the article) the text of the Peruvian casus foederis.--MarshalN20 | Talk 13:28, 25 September 2011 (UTC) Good heavens, don't tell me we're now going to argue about whether or not Peru declared war! Alex Harvey (talk) 14:43, 25 September 2011 (UTC) This really depends on Keysanger. Peru did not declare war. The text of the casus foederis actually exists, and can be read within the link I presented in the article. Declaring the casus foederis replaces the declaration of war. The question goes back as to why Keysanger wants to include the text "Peru declared war"?--MarshalN20 | Talk 14:50, 25 September 2011 (UTC) This is never going to stop, right? Alex, Peru did not declare war to Chile, there is not a single reference about this, and there is nothing to argue because never exists. This issue only exists to Keysanger and you Alex, as I say before, must be aware about the facts "in dispute" before give an opinion and just give up to Keysanger's "truth". Greetings. --Ian (CloudAOC) | Talk 16:58, 25 September 2011 (UTC) Okay, I admit I can't find any reference to Peru declaring war either. Keysanger? Alex Harvey (talk) 01:11, 26 September 2011 (UTC) I wrote as MarshalN20 said. --Best regards, Keysanger (what?) 19:16, 27 September 2011 (UTC) Unfortunately, MarshallN20 doesn't agree his own proposal. Please, do not delete the "multiple issues"-tag until all issues are resolved. --Best regards, Keysanger (what?) 07:40, 29 September 2011 (UTC) You are right MarshallN20, we live and learn. There is no PDOW. Hence my proposal is Peru reciprocated acknowledging casus foederis. --Best regards, Keysanger (what?) 09:58, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Issue 23: References

{{cite check}}

There are a lot of unnedded references, for example:

• Peru and Chile signed a treaty of alliance against Spain on December 5, 1865.[4]
• The treaty established the 24th parallel south as their mutual boundary.[5]
• An additional clause kept the treaty secret.[8]
• Chile was not directly mentioned in the treaty text and was not informed about its existence.[9]
• for 25 years and calling for Bolivia to open up.[5]
• etc, etc.

Perhaps I am wrong but no one disputes such facts. I think we should erase such references. --Best regards, Keysanger (what?) 09:54, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

List every single sentence whose references you want to delete (Don't just write "etc", because nobody knows what you are thinking). Otherwise a proper analysis cannot be made.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 13:41, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

I will use WP:BOLD to delete unneeded references and you will use WP:BOLD if you think that the reference is needed. Right?. --Best regards, Keysanger (what?) 14:52, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Deleting references is not WP:BOLD. Sourced statements and the sources themselves must first be analyzed prior to being deleted.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 16:37, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes. Before. --Best regards, Keysanger (what?) 13:10, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Are you going to provide the sources you are challenging?--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 15:37, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Issue 24: Topater

{{disputed}}

This battle was on 23 March 1879, also during the "Peruvian Mediation". I moved the passage to the right sub-section but it was reverted. I moved it again and hope the reverter gives his reasons at this place. --Best regards, Keysanger (what?) 09:54, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

The Battle of Topater took place during the Chilean invasion of the Bolivian coastline. It does not fit in with Peru's mediation.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 13:37, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Also the Treaty of Ancon in 1884 was signed during the Chilean occupation of the Litoral. Every section and subsection has a time limit we cann't exceed. Hence the battle belong to Peruvian Mediation. --Best regards, Keysanger (what?) 14:45, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

The Battle of Topater was on 1879, not 1884.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 16:33, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

The problem is the chronology of the battles, normally the War actions are divided as follows:

• Bolivian Litoral Campaign (February 1879 - December 1879), from Topater to Tambillo.
• Naval Campaign (April 1879 - October 1879) from Chipana to Angamos.
• Tarapacá Campaign (November 1879) from Pisagua to Tarapacá
• Tacna - Arica Campaign (December 1879 - June 1880) from Ilo to Arica
• Lima Campaign (November 1880 - January 1881) from Lurin to Miraflores
• Breña Campaign (February 1880 - July 1884) from Miraflores to Huamachuco

As you can see, the campaigns are not subsequent, and even some battles aren't mentioned, like Pisagua. I suggest a complete revision of the dates and the campaigns articles. What do you think? Greetings. --Ian (CloudAOC) | ^Talk 20:45, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

The battle simply doesn't fit in the section that deals with Peru's mediation. It's completely random. It fits in better with the "Crisis" section since (A) It's the first battle of the war and (B) What effect did it have on Peru's mediation?--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 02:15, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

We can't "re"-write the history. If occured during the PM then we tell it in the PM subsection. --Best regards, Keysanger (what?) 13:13, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Rewrite history? haha. Are you joking? The current version is correct. We have explained why it is correct. If you change it, we will report your edit as disruptive. Best regards.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 13:46, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't have a strong opinion on what section this belongs in but the argument that because "section X covers dates A to B therefore anything that happened between A and B needs to be in section X" doesn't make sense to me. By this logic the battle should also appear in our article on the Anglo-Zulu War simply because the dates coincide. Is there some other reason, apart from the dates, that Keysanger wants this in the PM section? Alex Harvey (talk) 10:30, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Dates overlap in both sections. The difference is that while one section focuses on the events taking place in the Litoral Department, the other focuses on the Peruvian Mediation. I am guessing this is something Keysanger can easily understand.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 21:19, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

RfC for Issue 10: neutrality, verifiability and encyclopedic worth

There is a long standing discussion about the neutrality, verifiability and encyclopedic worth of the subordinate clause [Miguel Grau] "(known as the "Knight of the Seas" due to his chivalry)". The Discussion can be seen in Talk:War_of_the_Pacific#Issue_10:_Grau. Best regards, Keysanger (what?) 14:21, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Statements from involved editors

• In my opinion the sentence is POV, based in a Peruvian childrenbook and has no encyclopedic worth. Hence it must be deleted without replacement. --Best regards, Keysanger (what?) 14:36, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

• I don't think it is helpful to raise the RFC relative to text in the article rather than relative to MarshalN20's actual proposal. Comments should be about the following text, not the text highlighted in the RFC:

On 21 May 1879, during the Battle of Iquique the Huáscar sank the Esmeralda and ended Chile's blockade of the Peruvian port. Meanwhile, while chasing away the Covadonga, the Peruvian Independencia wrecked near the shallow coastal waters of Punta Gruesa. The naval battle of Iquique gave a tactical victory to Peru: the blockade was defeated and one Chilean ship was sunk and the other retreated. Nevertheless, it was a pyrrhic victory; losing the Independencia, one of Peru's most important ships, was a fatal blow. When news of the defeat reached Santiago, the Esmeralda's crew and commander Arturo Prat became national heroes for their bravery. Captain Miguel Grau's decision to save shipwrecked Chilean sailors and send his formal condolences to Prat's wife earned him widespread recognition to all sides of the conflict, dubbing him the "Gentleman of the Seas".

Alex Harvey (talk) 14:45, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

I think my proposal is fair to both important figures of the naval conflict (Prat and Grau), based on what they did in the conflict. Keysanger complains about Miguel Grau because he dislikes any positive statement on a Peruvian figure. Evidenced by his statement:

"We see that the Knight of the Seas (Grau) is much better than a dead in combat (Prat), he is a hero only in Chile. Grau is "of the seas"."--Keysanger

Grau is indeed a trinational hero, honored by Chile, Peru, and Bolivia. This is what bothers Keysanger. He doesn't accept this sourced fact, and so wants to impose his version of reality in the article.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 15:35, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Statements from uninvolved editors

• This is confusing. The article currently states that Grau was "known as the 'Knight of the Seas' due to his chivalry", and this is sourced to Chile en la guerra del Pacífic, which is not in English. I can't tell whether the source supports this claim, and I can't assess the reliability of the source. Alex Harvey's quote, on the other hand, is not in the article at this time, and does not seem to have been in the article at any time in the recent past. The sentence as it stands ("Knight of the Seas") does not seem to have any issues with POV problems or peacock terms; I'm just concerned with whether reliable sources claim that he was called this for the reason given. If so, it should stay in the article. If not, it should be removed. As for Alex Harvey's extended quote, that would be much more problematic. You would have to show reliable sources that claim he had widespread recognition from all sides. I would prefer the original wording, if it can be sourced. – Quadell ^(talk) 20:20, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

I'll help with the sources.

• Google Books ("Knight of the Seas") [17], 5 results.
• Google Books ("Gentleman of the Seas") [18], has 3 results.
• Google Books ("Caballero de los Mares") [19], has 292 results.

In fact, the first time than the term "Caballero" (Knight) were used to describe Grau was shortly after the battle of Iquique, by the Prat's widow, in her letter thanking the return of the Prat's personal belongings when she said: "...con la hidalguía del caballero antiguo...". This is not "folklore", as Keysanger said, is a fact. This letter, along with the rescue of the Esmeralda's sailors cemented the Grau's reputation as a "Knight", than was later documented in several books and academic works. Greetings. --Ian (CloudAOC) | ^Talk 03:41, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Quadell, thanks for your comments. For the record, I have already supported Keysanger's position that I don't believe due weight has been established in reliable sources - certainly not in English language sources and this is the English Wikipedia. The extended quote you attributed to me is actually by MarshalN20 and I believe it is an improvement over what is in the article. The issue is not whether this material can be reliably sourced - all editors agree that the proposal is supported by reliable sources. The question is - does it belong in the article or is it really "promotional" material that doesn't belong in an encyclopaedia. Alex Harvey (talk) 07:12, 6 October 2011 (UTC)