Jump to content

Talk:War of the Pacific

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Eduardo Eddy Ramirez (talk | contribs) at 17:22, 11 August 2014 (→‎Sources used). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:Vital article


Argentine and the Secret Treaty of 1873

The article says nothings about the Argentina and the secret offenssive pact

Crisis/War

Hi Cloudac,

The war didn't began on 14 February. In fact the city of Antofagasta was populated 95% by Chileans and there are sources that confirm the celebrations in the streets of Antofagasta. If you want to mark the beginning of the war, I propose the day of the Bolivian Declaration of war on Chile. --Best regards, KS (wat?) 17:59, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

History books in Spanish and English says war started when our army invaded Antofagasta. Why you claim opposite?
Evidence: In book "Bolivia y Chile: desatando nudos" the author writes (page 66) that "La invasion chilena de Antofagasta producida el 14 de febrero de 1879 dio inicio a la Guerra del Pacifico."
This translates as War of the Pacific started in February 14, 1879, when we invade Bolivia. Eduardo Eddy Ramirez (talk) 16:22, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This again evidence of bias editing. Eduardo Eddy Ramirez (talk) 16:23, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Secret Treaty

Hi Cloudac,

why did you delete that the treaty was secret?. Wasn't?. Take a look to the discussion about some time ago. --Best regards, KS (wat?) 17:59, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Escaped, began-sharpened, Chilean Tax?

I made some changes regarding the wording of the article and I hope to meet the WP standards:

  • Escaped: The Chilean Version of this fight was that they won the battle, so to say they "escaped" from the Peruvians ships is in any case a Peruvian view. I think the word "fought" is more neutral.
  • The crisis began with the approbation of the 10 cents tax by the Bolivian Congress, or before as the Boundary Treaty was signed. In any case not with the occupation of Antofagasta. I use the term "sharpened".
  • To say that the Chileans protested because the Chileans imposed a 10 cents tax is stupid. It was a Bolivian tax, imposed by the Bolivian Government and approved by Bolivian Congress.

--Best regards, KS (wat?) 16:22, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Everyone with education in Chile knows Antofagasta was run by Chileans. Why you call that "stupid"? The only protest was from the salitrera company, not the Chileans in Antofagasta. Once our national army made it to city everyone cheered, but before only salitera company was making trouble. Eduardo Eddy Ramirez (talk) 16:10, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Depression

Hello Dentren,

I disagree your insertion of text [1] and this because of following reasons:

  1. Undue weight: You should know that the causes of the war are a controversial issue. As W. Sater states, the war could has had different causes, political, geopolitical, domestic policies in the three countries, but also economical reasons. To present the economical reason in such a overwhelming manner as you do, is a partial view of the facts and suggests the reader that the economical reasons where the only one. This is also the case of your addition of the template {{economic history of Chile}}
  2. WP:Verifiability : You cite "Palma, Gabriel. Trying to 'Tax and Spend' Oneself out of the 'Dutch Disease': The Chilean Economy from the War of the Pacific to the Great Depression. p. 217-240" at least ten times in the subsection. But in the whole Internet we find neither the text you cited nor a reference or cite to this source. If this text exists, I hope for you that it exists, it is irrelevant because it is not mentioned or edited or cited somewhere. (The only hits founded are from Wikipedia and we will not accept that an Wikipedia article cites another Wikipedia article as reliable source. Should we?)
  3. Partial interpretation of facts Your text addition doesn't consider the economic situation in Bolivia, that at least, triggered the war, the imposition of the ten cents over the saltpeter exports. Bolivia suffered also a economic depression but you "forget" it and use more as the half of the inserted text to explain the Chilean economic depression.
  4. Abuse of Primary Sources : We don't know in which context President Anibal Pinto said the cited sentence. Wanted he to impress his political adversaries in order to obtain support for his policies in parlament?, Did he meant an hypothetical case?, Wanted he to frighten the Peruvians?. We don't know, but fact is that the cite support your intention to put the Chilean economic crisis as the mayor cause of the war. Wikipedia asks you to: Do not analyze, synthesize, interpret, or evaluate material found in a primary source yourself; instead, refer to reliable secondary sources that do so.

I may remember you that there are two excellent books in English language about the War of the Pacific ("Andean Tragedy" of W. Sater and "The Ten Cents War" of Farcau, Bruce W.) and that they have set exacting requirements for the choice of reliable sources.I would suggest you look into the cited books instead of fringe theories in unknown papers.

--Best regards, KS (wat?) 16:01, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

1. "You should know that the causes of the war are a controversial issue." I know as you also knows. That is why it is important ot give a full background overview, including economic, political and social motifs involved. Regarding the template I see no problem in removing it, albeit it will reduce the possibilities for the readers to go other articles of interest.
2. The paper do exist. Take a look over here [2]
3. The incompletedness of information is no reason to remove content. The sources added are those found available, if you wish to complement them with information about Bolivia feel free to improve.
4. Yes we do know the context, the sources says clearly it is in 1878 in regard to the Long depression in Chile.
Dentren | Talk 16:29, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
1. to give a full background overview, including economic, political and social motifs involved that is what your insert doesn't do. It present only the possible economics reasons of the war, and of these it stresses the Chilean crisis. Your insert has 352 words, but only 129 words are related to the situation in Peru and none to the situuation in Bolivia. Moreover your eye-catcher {{economic history of Chile}} presented the causes of the war as a Chilean problem, of course, I will delete it with your approve.
2. Thanks for the link.
3. I will add a {{Missing information}} at the right places and add the information later
4. WP recommends not to abuse of primary sources. I will delete it.
Please, keep this article in your watchlist, I would like know your opinion regarding some changes I prepared for this article. --Best regards, KS (wat?) 19:56, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Corrections on 13 July

Hi Dentren,

I made some changes and I want to explain you the reasons:

  1. ) The name of the company was "Compañía de Salitres y Ferrocarril de Antofagasta" (CSFA) and the persistent use of the English name leads to the presupposition that it was a British company. It was not.
  2. ) A big part of the tensions in the region were due to the Peruvian economy problems and their grasp for the monopoly of Salpeter. I added this to the LEDE with the respective reference to the Peruvian source.
  3. ) The Chilean occupation of Antofagasta occurred after the CONFISCATION of the CSFA and not a threat of confiscation. Moreover, 14 February was the date of the auction.
  4. ) I moved, complete and unchanged, the paragraph "Bolivia and Chile disputed the Atacama region. Claiming territory acc ..." to the subsection "Treaty 1866"
  5. ) The Secret Treaty was secret and it must be said. To call it only a Mutual defence treaty is POV.
  6. ) I renamed the subsection "crisis" to "10 cents tax" because it is only a part of the history and it is not the "complete" crisis. I added a lot of interesting data from Querejazu and Peruvians historians. Somewhere get down the story of the Junta Municipal, but it isn't important because their proposal of the 10 cents tax was continued in La Paz with another argument, the no-approval of the license by the B. Congress. --Best regards, KS (wat?) 18:13, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Corrections 15 July

Hi Dentren,

I made some changes and I want to explain you the reasons:

  1. ) From 5 April to middle August (Capture of the Huascar) are 4.5 Months. That is far of one year.
  2. ) I moved all the sentences about the Peruvian Monopoly in the resp. new subsection.

The other changes are obvious. --Best regards, KS (wat?) 20:45, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dubious sources

Hi Dentren,

As I pointed out some time ago, the use of primary sources (Cáceres, Andrés. "Memorias de la guerra del 79") or "patriotic books" ("El expansionismo de Chile en el Cono Sur", "Historia del patriotismo, valor y heroнsmo de la Naciуn peruana en la guerra") is not supported by Wikipedia. I hope you can provide reliable sources for this extreme views. I add again the tag, that had been deleted without discussion. --Best regards, KS (wat?) 12:55, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User:Darkness Shines. Diego Barros Arana is also "primary source" with extreme patriotic views. Why user:keysanger use that (2 books in bibliography) and demand others ("I hope you can provide") to do opposite thing for Peru? This an example of biased editing. Eduardo Eddy Ramirez (talk) 16:01, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Barros Arana is cited at 96 with Spanish language: "Cuando el enemigo ha tomado posesión efectiva de una parte del territorio, el gobierno del otro estado deja de ejercer alli el poder. Los habitantes del territorio ocupado están eximidos de todos los deberes i obligaciones respecto del gobierno anterior, i están obligados a obedecer a los jefes del ejército de ocupación"

This translates as a justifying death threats and war crimes. How is this good "no patrotic" source? Eduardo Eddy Ramirez (talk) 16:04, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keysanger, I seem to recall at that time why you felt these sources were of no use, yet at the same time you were pushing the use of nationalist books which supported your POV. Perhaps you could explain this now? Darkness Shines (talk) 16:10, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Anti-peru edits by the user:keysanger

Seeing many new edits by the user "keysanger" reflect a bad article manipulation that are meant to be anti-peru. This user has an agenda with bias editing that is against peru. Mr Wales & Wikipedia staff, please make appropriate corrections. I have page now in "User:Eduardo Eddy Ramirez"

Which, what, where, why, who, when?. --Best regards, KS (wat?) 07:16, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I explain below which where who when what whatever. "Best regards" Eduardo Eddy Ramirez (talk) 15:23, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]


I deleted this post previously because there were serious accusations about personal behavior on a fellow editor that lacked evidence (according to WP:WIAPA the post constitutes a Personal Attack). Serious accusations require serious evidence. Evidence often takes the form of diffs and links presented on wiki. The user that posted the accusations seems to be new with wiki so I would encourage that user to follow up on this link WP:WIAPA. If the user can't provide any evidence I would encourage keysanger to delete the post ASAP and possibly speak to a wikipedia administrator (not Mr. Wales) if the post is continually being reverted back. I got nothing more to say.

I provide serious evidence very pronto. No worry on that. Eduardo Eddy Ramirez (talk) 16:00, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence bias edits by user:keysanger and user:sietecolores

User:Darkness Shines I look back article history and see many bad biased edits. I list them here for all eyes:

  1. On May 16, 2014 ([3]): Sietecolores deletes massive source text in the consequences section. Information deleted is my country's return stolen books to Peru, my country rise in influence and help to Peru rival Ecuador, the anti-indigenous response in Peru, and information about famous Peruvian Miguel Grau. Terrible edit removes over 6,000 kb of value information.
  2. On May 25, 2014 ([4]): Keysanger manipulates text to remove war begins when my country invades Antofagasta.
  3. On May 27, 2014 ([5]): Keysanger repeats same bad edit.
  4. On June 2, 2014 ([6]): Keysanger rewords lede information, but again manipulates text because article says something else: "On March 24, Peru responded to Chile and Bolivia by proposing that the Peruvian Congress debate both Chile's neutrality proposal and the Bolivian request for military action under the alliance on April 24" (that no says Peru refuses anything)
  5. On June 9, 2014 ([7]): Keysanger removes Peru and Bolivia commanders from summary box at top.
  6. On June 9, 2014 ([8]): Keysanger removes text on Chile economic troubles. Why? This is true and sourced. Educated people in Chile know the history.
  7. On June 18, 2014 ([9]): Keysanger again manipulates text. Antofagasta was filled with people from my country, many workers, and they also ran government in city. Why delete this text?
  8. On June 18, 2014 ([10]): Keysanger removes text on rescue of Chile sailors by Peru Miguel Grau, and deletes my country's national hero Arturo Prat from text.
  9. On July 8, 2014 ([11]): Keysanger shows anger at restoration of deleted text by User:Dentren and tags in retaliation. How this friendly atmosphere editing?
  10. On July 11, 2014 ([12]): Editor 210.50.244.119 deletes text writing true cause of war was my country's economic problems and ambition. This topic discussed much in my class in Universidad de Chile, but still relevant
  11. From July 11 up to 20, 2014 ([13]): Includes text manipulation like "As unenviable Chile’s situation was, that of Peru was much worse"
  12. On July 18, 2014 ([14]): Editor 210.50.244.119 removes text on the racial supremacy ideology in Chile. This is very big issue in my country even to this day.

All this shows article manipulation to reflect anti-Peru and anti-Bolivia text. This bad editing needs correction, and users mentioned need to be removed from participation in article. Gracias Eduardo Eddy Ramirez (talk) 18:23, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And I find this only going two pages back in article history. I only imagine how long this has been happening??? Eduardo Eddy Ramirez (talk) 18:24, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I look back more and also find this edit ([15]) where User:Cloudaoc fixes bad text that (surprise!) Keysanger wrote in article. Why this user:Keysanger not prohibited from editing this topic? Mr. Wales or Wikipedia staff cannot place topic restriction on this person? Eduardo Eddy Ramirez (talk) 18:37, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding my edit the deletion of content was done after I created the article Consequences of the War of the Pacific. So that no sourced content was removed from Wikipedia, I was just moved to make this article more compact. No biased editing there. Sietecolores (talk) 20:08, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I see that as text manipulation. You create article and delete all content from here to transfer there? You should leave some reference of text here in short and not delete all. Bad editing is bad. Eduardo Eddy Ramirez (talk) 15:07, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Next you delete what for "compact" purpose? Will you create separate article for murders in "Operacion Condor" and delete all murder text from it to make more "compact" article? As I says: bad editing is bad. No reason exists Eduardo Eddy Ramirez (talk) 15:10, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

All the improvements in the article in the last couple of months have all been well explained or have been supplemented with good sources as accordance with Wikipedia protocols. The above section very much intends to discredit the improvements by simply disregarding the explanations and sources provided and for all intents and purposes the above section is simply a very long diatribe against those editors who have made improvements. Furthermore there's no evidence to suggest that this article contains passages that can be considered bigoted towards Bolivia and Peru. The above section contains no diffs and links to even explicitly suggest that. 210.50.202.97 (talk) 22:06, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Ramirez: what you are seeing, are well explained and referenced changes. As example I will take your second case. I changed the word "war" by "crisis" in the sentence about 14 February and added the word "secret" to the treaty description. The landing in Antofagasta was hardly a military action, no fight was needed since Antofagasta already had a population comprised of 95% of Chileans. There are primary and secondary sources that state the celebrations in the streets of Antofagasta after the landings. The subsequent (and real) military actions took place after the parliament of Bolivia authorized a declaration of war on Chile some 12 days after the landing. About the treaty, read the text of treaty and you will understand why the treaty is called secret. --Keysanger (Talk) 15:12, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
On October 19, 2013 ([16]), Keysanger writes "deleted POV, folklore, and some unnecessary refs to well known facts" to delete over 13,000 KB of text from article. How this good "explained and referenced"? So bias "with explanation" is good bias? Eduardo Eddy Ramirez (talk) 15:16, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
User:Darkness Shines and User:Dentren and User:Cloudaoc. Look all see this text from William Sater (I own book):
"The War of the Pacific can be divided into six periods. The first, and shortest, began with Chile's capture of the Bolivian seaport of Antofagasta in February 1870 and ended a few days later when Santiago had occupied the rest of the Atacama Desert."
Text is in page 19 of his book "Andean Tragedy"
Above you see Keysanger explain his bias edit, but source says otherwise. War starts when my country invades Antofagasta, everyone knows that except Keysanger and his friends.
Why no topic ban been applied this user? I says again: Bad editing is bad. Eduardo Eddy Ramirez (talk) 15:20, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What I've seen so far are attempted invalidation of improvements over the last couple of months which appears now to be based solely on the discontent of one editor. Like I said before I would encourage the accused to seriously consider speaking to an administrator if the behavior demonstrated above is continuing. Honestly I'm yet to see the proverbial 'smoking gun' that demonstrates an edit or passage in the article that can be deemed discriminatory towards Bolivia and Peru as per the original allegation. 210.50.202.97 (talk) 17:38, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Source the "World Book Encyclopedia": "The War of the Pacific began as a quarrel between Bolivia and Chile over control of certain Bolivian nitrate deposits. As a result of the dispute, Chile invaded Bolivia in 1879, marking the start of the war."
I write now that in text article. Eduardo Eddy Ramirez (talk) 22:03, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
English not so good. Help with write ([17]). Gracias Eduardo Eddy Ramirez (talk) 22:06, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I check archives and find problems with Keysanger start in 2009 ([18]). Five years of bias edits. how terrible Eduardo Eddy Ramirez (talk) 22:39, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Personal attacks

According to WP:TALK, Stay on topic: Talk pages are for discussing the article, not for general conversation about the article's subject (much less other subjects). Keep discussions focused on how to improve the article. Comments that are plainly irrelevant are subject to archival or removal.

So, I removed the personal attack of the editor against me. I am not "Anti-Peru" nor can be said, w/o any explain, that my edits are bad article manipulation that are meant to be anti-peru.

Moreover, without any concrete reference to reliable sources, the deleted comments are the personal opinion of its author or authors, contradict the clause Stay objective: Talk pages are not a forum for editors to argue their personal point of view about a controversial issue.

Please, consider that in a talk page: Comment on content, not on the contributor: Keep the discussions focused upon the topic of the talk page, rather than on the personalities of the editors contributing to the talk page.

If someone has still doubts why I remove the sentences, please take a look to WP:TALK. --Best regards, KS (wat?) 20:47, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have doubts on your interpretation of the guideline see WP:TPO. I have restored the comment you removed, do not remove it again as you have now removed it twice. Darkness Shines (talk) 21:32, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I make no "personal attack" on anyone. I write only what I see. User:Keysanger says to "stay objective", but their edits is biased and this hurts article content. I studied of Saltpeter War in two classes at Universidad de Chile. I know many people like user:Keysnager that are anti-Peru and anti-Bolivia. I can provide evidence to stop this person from biasing article. Gracias. Eduardo Eddy Ramirez (talk) 15:36, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Guano, salitre, sangre: historia de la Guerra del Pacífico

Anyone got access to this source? I should like to know, author, publisher and if it has "when Chilean armed forces, enthusiastic welcomed by the population" are actually present in the source. Darkness Shines (talk) 21:12, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Book is reference in Sater book. Is true that Antofagasta was happy to have Chile take control. This why war is not consider conquest in my country. War is seen as taking what belongs us before land deal with Bolivia. But that no mean war no start when we invade the Bolivia controlled city. Authors say so in spanish and english. Eduardo Eddy Ramirez (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 16:35, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The text in Querejazu in page 248 states:
Mientras el Capitan Borgono llevaba y traia las cinco misivas que cambiaron Sotomayor y Zapata, 100 Marinos y 100 artilleros chilenos desembarcaron y tomaron posesion del puerto, ante la alborozada expectacion de sus compatriotas que recorrian las calles lanzando vivas a su patria
I hope your curiosity is satisfied. I revert your last changes. --Keysanger (Talk) 18:24, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I find it childish to discuss when the war began. With the first declaration of war?, with the occupation?, with the first battle?. with the first deadly cases?. I would say that a war begin with the first Point of no Return, today mostly when the first soldier die. An occupation doesn't mean a war immediately. As an example, take the case of the Falklands Islands. There have been "occupations" of French, Spaniards, Brits, Argentine, and US-Americans. Every of this occupations have been protested by another power. The first settlers, French, were occupyng a country within the Spanish region of the Tordesillas Treaty.

I would prefer my first wording, without mention of the beginning of the war. But if you find it important to set the date of the beginning, no problem. --Keysanger (Talk) 18:45, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What part of not RS do you not understand? weaponsandwarfare.com is not, and also does not support "Some authors set the beginning" Darkness Shines (talk) 20:41, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Second revert of my edits

æDarkness Shines: if you haven't the books, it is your problem. I delivered the refs and the text containing the facts. Querejazu is a well known Bolivian historian beyond any criticism about his work. You may belive him or not, but he is a well known hiostorian. Please, stop reverting. Last warning.


About Querejazu, http://www.librosmaravillosos.com/aclaracionesguerrapacifico/ states:

LIBRERÍA Y EDITORIAL "JUVENTUD" considera que el señor Roberto Querejazu Calvo es el historiador boliviano que más tiempo y esfuerzo ha dedicado al estudio de la Guerra del Pacífico, tanto en archivos y bibliotecas nacionales como de otros países y que, como resultado de esa investigación de varios años, es quien con más autoridad, ecuanimidad y veracidad ha relatado la historia de ese trágico episodio de la vida de nuestra Patria en su libro "GUANO, SALITRE, SANGRE" y en numerosos artículos de prensa.

--Keysanger (Talk) 20:47, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Last warning, or what? Lol, I have already added a decent reference, you have argued here that chilien sources are no good, same argument stands for Bolivian ones. Darkness Shines (talk) 20:58, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Darkness Shines:
  1. I kept your reference (Isabel Allende) untouched
  2. I never argued here that Chilean/Peruvian/Bolivian sources are no good. But only Chilean/Peruvian/Bolivian sources could be wrong, if the issue is controversial. That is not the case.
  3. The welcome of the Chilean troops occurred also on 14 February and a consequence of the landing. That is not OR as you want to invent.
  4. Stop reverting and your disruptive editing unless you want to get your name again in a noticeboard. I am observing carefully your behaiviour.
--Keysanger (Talk) 17:01, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Diddums, I said this was OR "Some authors set the beginning ", you will note that is not supported by the crappy reference you added, which I also told you is not RS as it is self published. You are also giving undue weight to the welcome the troops received, it has no place in the lede, which is why I clarified that in the section it belongs in, so I will revert you, and you may want to read the old WP:BRD essay. Darkness Shines (talk) 17:08, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

RfC: Which are the relevant facts for the LEDE regarding the 14 February 1879?

We have a disccusion whether following facts be present in the LEDE or not:

  1. some authors consider the 14 February as the beginning of the war, other not.
  2. the fact that the Chilean troops occupied the port city of Antofagasta without a fight
  3. the fact that the Chilean troops experienced widespread support
  4. the first battle occurred 6 weeks later

--Keysanger (Talk) 16:51, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What is the beginning of a war ?

I think that there isn't a sound definition of the beginning of a war. A occupation, the first shot, the Declaration of war, the first point of no return (whichever is it), the first dead person or the first battle. Every one of these events can be the beginning if a war. Moreover, the beginning of a war can be stay undefined, like the beginning of the WW2. Some authors set it to the 1.9.1939 but others say the beginning of WW2 was the Second Sino-Japanese War. This isn't only a discussion of a number. Unfortunately, for the simple reader, the event that marks the beginning of the war is associated with the cause of the war, it has the (negative) connotation of to be the cause of the war.

In this case we see the interest of Darkness Shines to say only that Chile began the war, but this isn't the complete fact of the 14 February. It must also be said that, there were no fights, widespread support and that the first battle occurred 6 weeks later. This allow the reader to get a wider view of the facts of this event. --Keysanger (Talk) 17:10, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:To declare February 14th as the "OFFICAL" start of the war automatically contradicts assertions already made in the article. First of all, it contradicts the initial intentions of the Antofagasta invasion, which was to protect Chilean interests and private property (was it a war or intervention?). It contradicts the first Declaration of war which was made from Bolivia on March 23 (BTW Bolivia celebrates this date as "day of the sea") and lastly it contradicts Bolivia and Peru’s mutual defense treaty which was to be activated once a state of war existed, hence Bolivia's war declaration. Keysanger's initial edits were reasonable and non-contradictory and should be reinstated with the improved additions and citations. Lastly just because a famous romance/drama author thinks February 14th was the start of the war and is used as a reference to validate that assertion, that does NOT demonstrate "good research" according to Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. 202.138.22.253 (talk) 09:22, 28 July 2014 (UTC) [reply]

further comment: I find it ironic that the above issue is being "censored" by a user who is actively editing an article called "Russian military intervention in Ukraine". Is that officially a war? Is Russia looking after its interests?. Mind you I have no opinion on that matter but its my understanding that no one has declared war therefore no war is happening. IMO this draws parallels with the above issue. 202.138.22.253 (talk) 11:11, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like your using a biography dedicated to Isabell allende(the romance/drama author) written by Mary-Ellen-Snodgrass as your source. How is that "good research"? If that is a mistake, you can admit to it now but I'm very sure without citing WP links that your citation is not valid. I will also feel very comfortable if you can also address my concerns I wrote above especially the fact the Bolivians celebrate the "day of the sea" on March 23, the same date they (Bolivians) think that war started. 202.138.22.253 (talk) 12:09, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:I would personally want the article reverted back to its state before the edit by eduardo. That initial edit may seem small and simple but it opens up a huge can of worms with contradictions and misinformation. If I'm wrong I would appreciate a reliable source be found that will explain why febuary 14 was when official state of war was declared and why march 23 ("day of the sea") is just folly. A simple request if it can be found. 202.138.22.253 (talk) 14:13, 28 July 2014 (UTC) [reply]

Snodgrass is a reliable source, did you not even follow the link I gave? I do not care when the Bolivians think the war began, all I care about is WP:V. We have a RS which says this is when the war started, and unless you have an RS which states otherwise then this is pointless. Darkness Shines (talk) 15:47, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The link in the article is referencing "Isabel Allende: A Literary Companion" written by Snodgrss. According to google, amazon etc etc this book is a biography to Isable Allende (romance/drama author). Why you choose a biography that has got nothing to do with the war is beyond me and furthermore this is not "good research" as per Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. I would like a reliable source (one where the war is the focus) to explicitly say that the war started on February 14 via declaration of war or other means and that Bolivia's day of the sea is completely folly. Not very hard to obtain I assume. Further more please address the concerns I put forward before.202.138.22.253 (talk) 16:31, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The source is fine, but here are a few more. [1][2] Darkness Shines (talk) 17:50, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  1. ^ Pike, Fredrick B. (1977). The United States and the Andean Republics: Peru, Bolivia, and Ecuador. Harvard University Press. p. 128. ISBN 978-0674923003. Chile broke off diplomatic relations and on February 14, 1879, landed troops that took possession of Antofagasta, thus triggering the War of the Pacific
  2. ^ Henderson, James D.; Delpar, Helen; Brungardt, Maurice Philip; Weldon, Richard N. (1999). A Reference Guide to Latin American History. M.E. Sharpe. p. 155. ISBN 978-1563247446.

Many things wrong with the two. The first one uses a weasel term (does triggering actually mean start?) and the other one doesn't even mention your assertion. (I've looked them up) I'm glad that you are beginning to see the error of your citation but those references are still not explicit at all. Furthermore please try sources but are entirely about the war and not on general Latin american history. Thank you 202.138.22.253 (talk) 18:30, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There are nothing wrong with the references I have given, and ya, triggered does mean start. And the other most certainly says the war started on February 14, 1879, do not accuse me of misrepresenting sources again. Darkness Shines (talk) 19:52, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
the second source does not mention the war starting on February 14, it only mentions Chilean troops arriving in Antofagasta, and for the first source you provided the word triggering is clearly a WP:WEASEL which can give multiple interpretations and is not explicit , i don't think your interpretations is valid (would you like that term 'triggering' in the article?). I would strongly suggest that you stop using quote finders which leads to questionable sources that include biographies on romance/drama authors and general history books that make glancing comments on the war. 210.50.245.62 (talk) 04:54, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have given three WP:RS which gives the start date of the war, until such a time as you have a RS which disputes that then this conversation is over. Darkness Shines (talk) 16:46, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

MOS:INTRO states for the LEDE explicit : Do not hint at startling facts without describing them. I suppose that the "War beginning" is such a startling facts, @DS: why do you refuse to give the reader the information about issues 1-4 in the lede?. --Keysanger (Talk) 20:22, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

To state when the war started is not a "startling fact". I see no reason to mention in the lede that the Chilean troops capturing Antofagasta got a warm welcome, it is quite simply an undue bit of trivia for the lede. I never said we should not mention when the first combat occurred. Darkness Shines (talk) 20:28, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@DS:

  1. What do you mean with "The start of the war started"?. Please, be so kind to correct your spelling and explain what do you mean.
  2. what about the issue 1) "some authors consider the 14 February as the beginning of the war, other not".
  3. what about the issue 2) "the fact that the Chilean troops occupied the port city of Antofagasta without a fight"

Nice that you accept the issue 4) the first battle occurred 6 weeks later. --Keysanger (Talk) 21:12, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I said the first combat, not the first battle. The first combat was the capture of Antofagasta, it does not matter that no shots were fired. To write "some authors consider the 14 February as the beginning of the war, other not" is OR, as you have no source to support that statement, I have clarified my previous comment. Darkness Shines (talk) 22:33, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@DS: I transcript some paragraphs of Bruce W. Farcau's "Ten Cents War", page 42, regarding the options after the 14 February 1879:

...
Only once piece remained to fall into place to determine whether a real war would now occur or whether some sort of deal might yet be struck. This was the question of whether or not Peru would honor the 1873 “secret” treaty and come to Bolivia’s aid.
… After all, no blood had yet been shed, and there would still be a substantial swath of B. territory separating Peru from Chile…. And was it not likely that, without Peru’s support, Bolivia would simply see the wisdom in acceding to Chilean demands and avoiding the war altogether?. (Bold by Wikipedia)
...
Lavalle [Peruvian Mediatior] departed Lima on 22 February, well before the Bolivian declaration of war, but nothing irreversible was to occur for some time, so he did have some freedom of manoever in Santiago. (Bold by Wikipedia)

I transcript a paragraph of page 28 of W. Sater "Andean Tragedy" regarding the events after the 14 Februara 1879:

Only on 5 April did Santiago reciprocate, plunging South America's west coast into what became known as the War of the Pacific, a conflict that lasted until 1884.
  1. Question: Farcau is saying that there was still not a war, or what?
  2. Question: when, says W.Sater, plunged SA into the WotP?
  3. Question: Do you have a RS that states the combat of Antofagasta?
  4. Question: Why should we write yours 14 February and not the others? Is Isabel Allende a better RS than Bruce Farcau?
  5. Question: About Combat Wikipedia states Combat or fighting is a purposeful violent conflict meant to weaken, establish dominance over, or kill the opposition, or to drive the opposition away from a location where it is not wanted or needed...The term combat (French for fight) typically refers to armed conflict between opposing military forces in warfare, whereas the more general term "fighting" can refer to any violent conflict between individuals or nations. Combat violence can be unilateral, whereas fighting implies at least a defensive reaction. However, the terms are often used synonymously along with the term "Battle Ready". A large-scale fight is known as a battle. Have you a better definition?
  6. Question: Do we need a RfC to decide which is a more RS about the Beginning of the WotP, B.W.Farcau or I.Allende?

We should dismiss authors making trivial passing-by mentions, and work with those who acknowledge the existence of this dispute and explains their reasons for endorsing one or other side. I would suggest you respond the Questions each after another.

--Keysanger (Talk) 00:02, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You do not get to dismiss a source just because you do not like it, not a single piece of text you have written actually disputes the sources I have supplied, cheers. Darkness Shines (talk) 16:46, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think DS should look at his mistake with a different angle, Isabel Allende is the Spanish speaking equivalent to English author E.L. James. She is the author of the fifty shades of grey books. I'm curious, would you use a biography of E.L. James to validate an assertion on a war history article? I'm going out on a limb here but it appears your clearly out of you depth when comes to Latin american history articles, the fact your clearly using a quote finder and not being scrupulous with the quote and the source validates my point. "When you find yourself in a hole, quit digging" ― Will Rogers. 210.50.245.62 (talk) 10:31, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@DS I ask you again to answer my questions:

  1. Question: Farcau is saying that there was still not a war, or what?
  2. Question: when, says W.Sater, plunged SA into the WotP?
  3. Question: Do you have a RS that states the combat of Antofagasta?
  4. Question: Why should we write yours 14 February and not the others? Is Isabel Allende a better RS than Bruce Farcau?
  5. Question: About Combat Wikipedia states Combat or fighting is a purposeful violent conflict meant to weaken, establish dominance over, or kill the opposition, or to drive the opposition away from a location where it is not wanted or needed...The term combat (French for fight) typically refers to armed conflict between opposing military forces in warfare, whereas the more general term "fighting" can refer to any violent conflict between individuals or nations. Combat violence can be unilateral, whereas fighting implies at least a defensive reaction. However, the terms are often used synonymously along with the term "Battle Ready". A large-scale fight is known as a battle. Have you a better definition?
  6. Question: Do we need a RfC to decide which is a more RS about the Beginning of the WotP, B.W.Farcau or I.Allende?

--Keysanger (Talk) 00:04, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Outsider view: Just follow the cites, or simply state facts - I'm an outsider coming from the RFC and suggest just relax on this back and forth debating, it seems not usable for article purposes as none of it is citeable or presentable material and seems unnecessary. First, for WP purposes the date of start is whatever the academic consensus says it is. Second, if there is no dominant date then you can just state what consensus facts are including not naming a date. For example, there seems editor consensus that "on 14 February 1879 Chilean forces occupied Antofagasta and on 1 March Bolivia declared war' so you could just say that. I don't think the article is really improved by the phrase 'the war started on' so unless there is academically predominant date. Markbassett (talk) 04:10, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That solution is forthcoming if the article can be reverted to this revision from july 21 before the Eduardo edit.[19]. 210.50.245.62 (talk) 09:53, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • my view: I agree with the sentiment by Markbassett and it is true that February the 14th 1879 is no doubt one of the pivotal dates of the war, but I do not think this article is improved by using the phrase 'war started on' if you were to take into account the book "the 10 cents war" by Bruce W. Farcau which is a very thorough account of the war. I don't see any shortcomings by stating that on February 14 Chilean forces occupied Antofagasta and later on Bolivia declared war or something else to that nature. Chelios123 (talk) 13:22, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

War start on February 14

  • Book Bolivia y Chile: Desatando Nudos the author writes (page 66) "La invasion chilena de Antofagasta producida el 14 de febrero de 1879 dio inicio a la Guerra del Pacifico." in English: "The Chile invasion of Antofagasta, produced on 14 February of 1879 gave start to the War of the Pacific"
  • Book The Rough Guide to Bolivia the author writes "Early the next year Chilean forces began the War of the Pacific, occupying the entire Bolivian coastline - where the population was in any case already two-thirds Chilean - and invading Peru, which was allied to Bolivia"
  • Book Andean Tragedy the author writes "The War of the Pacific can be divided into six periods. The first, and shortest, began with Chile's capture of the Bolivian seaport of Antofagasta in February 1870 and ended a few days later when Santiago had occupied the rest of the Atacama Desert"
  • Book The United States and the Andean Republics: Peru, Bolivia, and Ecuador the author writes "Chile broke off diplomatic relations and on February 14, 1879, landed troops that took possession of Antofagasta, thus triggering the War of the Pacific"
  • Book Chile: The Bradt Travel Guide the author writes "The city [of Antofagasta] was occupied by Chile at the start of the war [of the pacific] and never looked back"
  • Book Chile and Easter Island the author writes "War of the Pacific begins as Chileans occupy the port-city of Antofagasta"
  • Book Historical Dictionary of Chile the author writes "Chile occupied Antofagasta in February 1879 (the immediate cause of the War of the Pacific)"
  • Book Lines in the Sand the author writes ""The nitrate bearing territories of Antofagasta and Tarapaca were the real and direct causes of the war," affirmed Chilean Minister of Foreign Affairs Jose Manuel Balmaceda in a circular issued from his office in December 1881"
  • Book Nation Shapes: The Story Behind the World's Borders the author writes "The war began after Chile occupied the city of Antofagasta, which was Bolivia's only port on the Pacific Ocean"

I think evidence overwhelming favors war start on February 14 1879, when Chile invades Antofagasta. Eduardo Eddy Ramirez (talk) 16:44, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

From the reputable sources you provide (the first 3) NONE explicitly say that February 14 was the "official" start date of the war. In fact those quotes give weight to keysanger's argument that a "crisis" began on February 14 with the Chilean invasion of Antofagasta with the first declaration of war and armed conflict occurring on a later date (please use keysanger's source for clarification). Furthermore I don't think using travel guides and general history books on South America helps your case. 210.50.245.62 (talk) 16:22, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As I stated earlier by simply and mindlessly saying that February 14 was the "official" start date of the war (no reputable sources states that), this assertion automatically diminishes important facts to the reader about the initial reasons for the invasion, it virtually gives no weight to the first declaration of the war via the activation of the mutual defense treaty between Bolivia and Peru and most importantly it diminishes the important date of March 23 when the "first" act of war occurred. Like I said before the Bolivians commemorate this date as 'day of the sea'. 210.50.245.62 (talk) 16:58, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
IP, read WP:INDENT please, and note that Fredrick B. Pike, who I have previously mentioned above, and who is the winner of the American Historical Associations Bolton Prize in 1963, and who holds a distinguished graduate award in Latin American History says otherwise. Darkness Shines (talk) 17:05, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That's the source that uses the weasel word "triggering" (look at the quote). If anything it could be a short way of implying that the invasion on February 14 "created a crisis which eventually lead to a war" but it most certainly doesn't explicitly mean "started the war" (would you like to use the word 'triggering' in the article?)Wikipedia:Avoid_weasel_words. Sources focused on the war should be used. Incidentally the administrator EdJohnston had interesting words to Eduardo in the talk page concerning this impasse and about sources. I hoped you read it. Thanks for the link BTW :) 210.50.245.62 (talk) 18:04, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Lulz, and I cannot stop LMFAO, triggered is not a weasel word, perhaps in a fevered imagination it is, I dunno?
Actually I've heard that term being used before. Please look at Archduke_Franz_Ferdinand_of_Austria#Assassination. This article very much agrees what I think it implies. what do you think? Nonetheless that source you provide only tries to generalize the war without going into detail and it should not be used to attempt to clarify contentious assertions. 210.50.245.62 (talk) 05:25, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keysanger Résumé

We have seen that there are several authors who set the date of the beginning of the war on 14 February, but others set the date later (e.g. [20]). This is a fact and is to be considered when we write the Lede. We can also see that most of the authors, set the date in passing-by, without study of the circumstances of the moment. Only three of them analyse the situation regarding the interests of the countries and the significance of the moves. The three historians are, Farcau, Sater and Pike.

As no one of the editors in this discussion contradicted my questions, I assume that it is us all clear that:

  1. Farcau says that there was still not a war.
  2. W.Sater says that South America plunged into the WotP only on 5 April
  3. That there has never been a Combat of Antofagasta nor any fight on 14 February and that the Chilean troops were welcomed (see also well known Peruvian historian J. Basadre)

We have already appreciated the terms of Farcau and Sater to the events of the 14 February, I repeat it here only for negligent editors:

Here follows Farcau's "Ten Cents War", page 42, regarding the options after the 14 February 1879:

Only once piece remained to fall into place to determine whether a real war would now occur or whether some sort of deal might yet be struck. This was the question of whether or not Peru would honor the 1873 “secret” treaty and come to Bolivia’s aid.
… After all, no blood had yet been shed, and there would still be a substantial swath of B. territory separating Peru from Chile…. And was it not likely that, without Peru’s support, Bolivia would simply see the wisdom in acceding to Chilean demands and avoiding the war altogether?. (Bold by Wikipedia)
...Lavalle [Peruvian Mediatior] departed Lima on 22 February, well before the Bolivian declaration of war, but nothing irreversible was to occur for some time, so he did have some freedom of manoever in Santiago. (Bold by Wikipedia)

And here I transcript a paragraph of page 28 of W. Sater "Andean Tragedy" regarding the events after the 14 Februara 1879:

Only on 5 April did Santiago reciprocate, plunging South America's west coast into what became known as the War of the Pacific, a conflict that lasted until 1884.

In Fredrick B. Pike book, we read that the occupation of Antofagasta was the "triggering" of the WotP. But in the next page he wrote "Mariano Ignacio Prado ... dispatched a mission to Santiago to seek a formula for preserving peace." That, "preserving peace", means peace was still there, at least on 22 March 1879, as Lavalle departed from Lima-Callao to Santiago de Chile!. Can we imagine a trip to a country in war?. So, when we read "The war was triggered on 14. February" we must understand that it is not the beginning of the hostilities or even less the war but a distinctive step in the long way to the war.

This thought is not mine, it is from W. Sater, "Andean Tragedy", page 42: Thus the War of the Pacific, like the First World War after it, appeared to begin by accident, with one unrelated act knocking over the first domino that in turn upended others. Before they realized it, Chile, Peru, and Bolivia were at war.

Therefore, to simply write in the lede "The war began on 14 February" (as the current version says) is misleading for the reader and it is absolutely necessary to add following information:

  1. some authors consider the 14 February as the beginning of the war, other not.
  2. the fact that the Chilean troops occupied the port city of Antofagasta without a fight
  3. the fact that the Chilean troops experienced widespread support
  4. the first battle occurred 6 weeks later

To insist with others passing-by mentions of the start of the war, (like Isabel Allende's comments or worse travel guides), to invent pathological "combats" that never occurred, or simply to ignore the historians that studied the War is fallacious and disruptive.

Three editors (IP-user, Markbassett, and Keysanger) have argued for a comprehnsive description of the facts on and after 14 February. The version [21] is the version to be used. --Keysanger (Talk) 16:47, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

To say "some authors" is weasel when most say it happened on February 14. Eduardo Eddy Ramirez (talk) 16:20, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

user:Keysanger asks "Can we imagine a trip to a country in war?" Answer is: yes! Happens all time. Pike is writing Peru mediation was trying to preserve peace between Peru and Chile. Chile had conflict with Bolivia after invasion Antofagasta. Peru was not involved in conflict. Duh! Eduardo Eddy Ramirez (talk) 16:39, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Follow authors, not made-up consensus

I find dumb and bad that attention placed on made-up story by user:Keysanger.

User:EdJohnston tells me in his talk page to present reliable sources. I list again what I presented above with famous authors (no travel guides):

  • Nation Shapes: The Story Behind the World's Borders the author writes "The war began after Chile occupied the city of Antofagasta, which was Bolivia's only port on the Pacific Ocean"
    • AUTHOR: Professor Fred Shelley, political geography, "Professor and Chair, Department of Geography, University of Oklahoma, 2004-present"
  • Andean Tragedy the author writes "The War of the Pacific can be divided into six periods. The first, and shortest, began with Chile's capture of the Bolivian seaport of Antofagasta in February 1870 and ended a few days later when Santiago had occupied the rest of the Atacama Desert"
    • AUTHOR: Professor William Sater, "professor emeritus of history at California State University-Long Beach".
  • The United States and the Andean Republics: Peru, Bolivia, and Ecuador the author writes "Chile broke off diplomatic relations and on February 14, 1879, landed troops that took possession of Antofagasta, thus triggering the War of the Pacific"
    • AUTHOR: Fredrick B. Pike, winner of the American Historical Association's 1963 Bolton Prize, holds a distinguished graduate award from the University of Texas Institute of Latin American Studies.
  • Bolivia y Chile: Desatando Nudos the author writes (page 66) "La invasion chilena de Antofagasta producida el 14 de febrero de 1879 dio inicio a la Guerra del Pacifico." in English: "The Chile invasion of Antofagasta, produced on 14 February of 1879 gave start to the War of the Pacific"
    • AUTHOR: Fernando Salazar-Paredes is a Bolivian lawyer and scholar, ambassador of Bolivia at the Organization American States (OEA) from 1982-1985.
  • The World Book Encyclopedia the author writes (page 315) "The War of the Pacific began as a quarrel between Bolivia and Chile over control of certain Bolivian nitrate deposits. As a result of the dispute, Chile invaded Bolivia in 1879, marking the start of the war."

All these authors are high quality academics. Way too funny others say this is "some authors". This not some, this majority. Eduardo Eddy Ramirez (talk) 16:45, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Also worthy note that Bruce Farcau (author The Ten Cents War), writes in page 48 of his book that "The initial army of invasion landed at Antofagasta consisted of a mixed force off five hundred men under Colonel Emilio Sotomayor". this be found in chapter 4 "opening moves". this has many interpretation open. If no war, then why opening move? Is opening move before war? Farcau makes no sense. user:Keysanger makes up answer he likes and pushes it. I think this wrong. Focus should be on what authors say, not on what user:Keysanger says. user:Keysanger is not reliable academic and probably never will be. Sorry! Eduardo Eddy Ramirez (talk) 16:58, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Ramirez: You repeat continuously the same error: to deliver sources with a passing-by mention of the issue. I want to help you with a example. There is a lot of books, most travel guides, that states that Cape Horn is the southernmost Island of America. If you gather all of them, you would write in the respective article that Cape Horn is the Southernmost Island. It is not. The Diego Ramirez Islands are the southernmost Islands of the American continent. In order to obtain the best information you have to gather information from the books that deal especially with this issue, in this case with Geography and with an academic pretension. Read please WP:CONTEXTMATTERS, especially The reliability of a source depends on context. Each source must be carefully weighed to judge whether it is reliable for the statement being made in the Wikipedia article and is an appropriate source for that content. In general, the more people engaged in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the writing, the more reliable the publication.... A professor of Geography, a lawyer, and a Encyclopedia are not good enough for our article. Only Farcau, and Sater deal with the issue of the discussion, and Pike also, partially. We have seen that they (3) support the case that the occupation of Antofagasta didn't begin the war, no fights, no deaths but mediation and the possibility of avert the war, see above in Résumé. Please, stop delivering further passing-by citations, it is getting boring and possibly disruptive editing. --Keysanger (Talk) 19:56, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Article belong to Wikipedia not you or me, so this not "our article".
So far you only present Farcau as source. All you do is find ways to ignore other sources that have majority view.
Yeah CONTEXT MATTERS. You are one taking statements out of context.
Sater clearly states first phase of war starts with invasion of Antofagasta.
Farcau writes "Only once piece remained to fall into place to determine whether a real war would now occur or whether some sort of deal might yet be struck". Important word is real war, meaning that war was already in place but "not real" because no blood shed.
I provide sources. User:Darkness Shines provides sources. You provide boring argumentation with personal bias and original conclusion.
user:Keysanger is not an academic source. user:Keysanger this is not your article. Eduardo Eddy Ramirez (talk) 20:17, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Funny, but Farcau statement is like Pinochio. He wants to be a "real boy". But Pinochio still a boy. Farcau says "real war" not occur. But war still going on. Eduardo Eddy Ramirez (talk) 20:57, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Its quite clear that this sub-section was created to merely discredit an editors contribution to this article with miscellaneous sources that are suspect at best, however reputable sources with an eye for detail on this war validate the following assertions already stated on the article:

  • February 14, 1879, Chilean troops invade and occupy the city of Antofagasta but no armed conflict occur, no war declaration made but nonetheless a diplomatic crisis arose
  • by the end of February the first war declaration was made by Bolivia
  • first armed conflict started on March 23 ('day of the sea')
I chose to paraphrase because this section is getting way too long. But if February 14 is the start date of the war then clearly that assertion contradicts the three statements above. Surely changes are needed to be made in order to validate the "corrected" start date of the war.

I hope willing contributors to this discussion take the above three statements on board and also consider reputable sources from historians that write books that are wholly focused on the war and not just general history books that are previously listed. 210.50.245.62 (talk) 21:10, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What books? You present only Farcau. And you present him wrong.
Declaration of war is not needed for war start. Many wars take place in history without one even made.
user:Keysanger is not reliable source. Pike, Shelley, Sater, Salazar-Paredes are. Farcau too, when read right (not Keysanger interpretation). Eduardo Eddy Ramirez (talk) 21:18, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your opinion is appreciated of course. But remember this is a consensus forum and I was speaking for all potential contributors not just you.210.50.245.62 (talk) 21:31, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sources used

===Sources stating shallow-brained that "the war started/began on 14 February"===
  • Snodgrass, Mary Ellen: "Isabel Allende: A Literary Companion"
  • The World Book Encyclopedia the author writes (page 315) "The War of the Pacific began as a quarrel between Bolivia and Chile over control of certain Bolivian nitrate deposits. As a result of the dispute, Chile invaded Bolivia in 1879, marking the start of the war."
  • Bolivia y Chile: Desatando Nudos, the author writes (page 66) "La invasion chilena de Antofagasta producida el 14 de febrero de 1879 dio inicio a la Guerra del Pacifico." in English: "The Chile invasion of Antofagasta, produced on 14 February of 1879 gave start to the War of the Pacific"
  • The Rough Guide to Bolivia, the author writes "Early the next year Chilean forces began the War of the Pacific, occupying the entire Bolivian coastline - where the population was in any case already two-thirds Chilean - and invading Peru, which was allied to Bolivia"
  • Andean Tragedy, the author writes "The War of the Pacific can be divided into six periods. The first, and shortest, began with Chile's capture of the Bolivian seaport of Antofagasta in February 1870 and ended a few days later when Santiago had occupied the rest of the Atacama Desert"
  • The United States and the Andean Republics: Peru, Bolivia, and Ecuador, the author writes "Chile broke off diplomatic relations and on February 14, 1879, landed troops that took possession of Antofagasta, thus triggering the War of the Pacific"
  • Chile: The Bradt Travel Guide, the author writes "The city [of Antofagasta] was occupied by Chile at the start of the war [of the pacific] and never looked back"
  • Chile and Easter Island, the author writes "War of the Pacific begins as Chileans occupy the port-city of Antofagasta"
  • Historical Dictionary of Chile, the author writes "Chile occupied Antofagasta in February 1879 (the immediate cause of the War of the Pacific)"
  • Lines in the Sand, the author writes "The nitrate bearing territories of Antofagasta and Tarapaca were the real and direct causes of the war," affirmed Chilean Minister of Foreign Affairs Jose Manuel Balmaceda in a circular issued from his office in December 1881"
  • Nation Shapes: The Story Behind the World's Borders, the author writes "The war began after Chile occupied the city of Antofagasta, which was Bolivia's only port on the Pacific Ocean"
===Sources stating shallow-brained that the war started on another day or situation===
  • [22] La guerra se desarrolló en varias etapas, siendo la primera la campaña marítima, en la que se produjo el famoso Combate Naval de Iquique.
  • [23] La primera etapa de la contienda se extendió hasta el 8 de octubre de 1879 y se caracterizó por la lucha por el dominio del mar entre las escuadras de Perú y Chile
  • [24] The war began at sea, when Chilean warships blockaded Peruvian and Bolivian ports.
  • [25], En torno a los Orígenes de La Guerra del Pacífico, Luis Ortega, El 5 de abril de 1879 se inició oficialmente una guerra que por cinco años enfrentó a Bolivia y Perú, por un lado, y a Chile, por otro.
  • [26] Más tarde, el 5 de abril de ese mismo año, cuando Perú reconoció la existencia de un tratado secreto con Bolivia, Chile decidió declarar la guerra a ambos países. Así, comienza la Guerra del Pacífico.
  • [27] Chile no quería ir a la guerra, pero cuando quedó al descubierto que en 1873 Bolivia había firmado con el Perú un pacto secreto que los obligaba a respaldarse mutuamente ante "toda agresión del exterior", el ministro de Relaciones Exteriores chileno declaró que "la guerra es el único camino que nos queda".
  • [28] The "Saltpetre War," referring to the desert’s nitrate deposits, officially began in February 1879 when Bolivia threatened to tax a Chilean mining operation in the port city of Antofagasta and in doing so broke a recently agreed treaty
===Sources with in-depth examination of the start of the war===
We also have known several valuable in-depth examinations giving a full account of the surrounding conditions of the 14. February regarding the begin of the war.
  • es:Nelson Manrique, "La guerra del pacífico: una revisión crítica." in a comment by Mariano Chiappe in [29] states that:
El acto de fuerza de chile en Antofagasta provocó una febril actividad diplomática. El gobierno peruano trató por todos los medios de conseguir que el conflicto se solucionara por medio de un arbitraje, pues sabía que de desencadenarse la guerra se veía inevitablemente implicado.
(transl.: The Chilean act of force started a frantic diplomatic activity. The Peruvian government tried by any means to resolve the conflict by mediation, for they know that if the war started, Peru would be inescapable envolved)
El Peru opto por las negociaciones, que no gusta a Bolivia. Tambien Chile esperaba o alentaba un golpe militar en Bolivia, que al parecer, le iba a favorecer. Todo ello inclino a Chile a aceptar la mediacion, pero esta, no podia prolongarse por mucho tiempo, puesto que favorecia al Peru en sus apresto militares de ultima hora. Ademas, Chile necesitaba un poco de tiempo para presentar al Peru como "perfido" y preparar psicologicamente a su pueblo sobre la guerra que ya era inevitable (transl.:Peru chose to mediate ..., Chile needed time to ...)
El presidente chileno el 24 de marzo de 1879 manifestaba a Lavalle [the Peruvian mediatior] lo siguiente: ... pero que no existiendo realmente ningun motivo de guerra entre Peru y Chile, cuyos comunes intereses exigian el siempre ir de acuerdo, no veia por que se debia llegar a tan dolorosa extremidad y que todo podia evitarse con la simple declaracion de neutralidad por parte del Peru (transl.: ... Pinto said: there are no reasons to make a war ... all what we need is a Peruvian declaration of neutrality ...)
Lavalle en entrevista con Pinto [Chilean President] le manifestaba: "Pero asegurandole nuevamente por mi parte que esa declaracion de neutralidad que solicita del Peru, el Peru no debia, no podia, ni queria hacerla, y que veia con profundo pesar que las cosas se acercaban a un doloroso y sangriento termino.
Y la guerra se hizo presente en el Pacifico Sur. ( Transl.: And the war came to the South Pacific)
  • Farcau's "Ten Cents War", page 42, regarding the options after the 14 February 1879:
Only once piece remained to fall into place to determine whether a real war would now occur or whether some sort of deal might yet be struck. This was the question of whether or not Peru would honor the 1873 “secret” treaty and come to Bolivia’s aid.
… After all, no blood had yet been shed, and there would still be a substantial swath of B. territory separating Peru from Chile…. And was it not likely that, without Peru’s support, Bolivia would simply see the wisdom in acceding to Chilean demands and avoiding the war altogether?. (Bold by Wikipedia)
...Lavalle [Peruvian Mediatior] departed Lima on 22 February, well before the Bolivian declaration of war, but nothing irreversible was to occur for some time, so he did have some freedom of manoever in Santiago. (Bold by Wikipedia)
  • W. Sater "Andean Tragedy", regarding the events after the 14 February 1879:
page 28: Only on 5 April did Santiago reciprocate, plunging South America's west coast into what became known as the War of the Pacific, a conflict that lasted until 1884.
  • Fredrick B. Pike, "The United States and the Andean Republics: Peru, Bolivia, and Ecuador", we read (p. 128) that the occupation of Antofagasta was the "triggering" of the WotP. But in the next page he wrote "Mariano Ignacio Prado ... dispatched a mission to Santiago to seek a formula for preserving peace."
page 28 Chapter "La mediacion del Peru: La mision Lavalle": Es cierta, seguramente, la angustia del gobierno peruano para ganar tiempo; pero no sólo para que el país se preparara para la guerra, sino también, si era posible para aplazarla. (transl.: For sure, the efforts of the Peruvian government, not only to prepare the war but also to postpone it)
page 45: Ambos convinieron en que la guerra era inminente. (transl.: both [Chilean Foreign Affairs Minister Domingo Santa Maria and Peruvian Mediatior Lavalle] agreed that the war was imminent)
Can you stop posting wallsotext constantly, and what is "shallow-brained" all about? Darkness Shines (talk) 17:31, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Shallow-brained . Talk to me, if you need more English. --Keysanger (Talk) 16:03, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keysanger is making up things. Peru sends representatives so that it can keep peace between Peru and Chile. Peru had secret treaty with Bolivia. Peru was looking after own interests. Invasion Antofagasta triggers war, starts war, begins war, whatever you call it. That is what the academics say that is what Wikipedia should say. Eduardo Eddy Ramirez (talk) 17:22, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Request to close the discussion

Hello EdJohnston,
I consider the discussion Talk:War_of_the_Pacific#RfC: Which are the relevant facts for the LEDE regarding the 14 February 1879? (see above) as finished.
According to WP:DCL I request you to apply the reached agreement to revert to [30], the last version before Ramirez changes and to close this discussion.
The second paragraph of the Lede will be:
The crisis sharpened on February 14, 1879 when Chilean armed forces occupied the port city of Antofagasta, as the Bolivian authorities pretended to auction the confiscated property of Chilean CSFA.
instead of the current protected:
The War of the Pacific started on February 14, 1879[1] when Chilean armed forces occupied the port city of Antofagasta, as the Bolivian authorities pretended to auction the confiscated property of Chilean CSFA
(This indented paragraph has been added subsequently. --Keysanger (Talk) 20:22, 9 August 2014 (UTC))[reply]
Six editors have given their opinions about the question in the RfC. Four editors agree that the events on the 14 February 1879 aren't to be set as the beginning of the war (that is to keep the last version before the Ramirez change). Two editors want to keep the current protected version.
There have been several contributions of different weight about the events before, during and after 14 February in Antofagasta.
Sources stating that "the war started/began on 14 February"
  • Snodgrass, Mary Ellen: "Isabel Allende: A Literary Companion"
  • The World Book Encyclopedia the author writes (page 315) "The War of the Pacific began as a quarrel between Bolivia and Chile over control of certain Bolivian nitrate deposits. As a result of the dispute, Chile invaded Bolivia in 1879, marking the start of the war."
  • Bolivia y Chile: Desatando Nudos, the author writes (page 66) "La invasion chilena de Antofagasta producida el 14 de febrero de 1879 dio inicio a la Guerra del Pacifico." in English: "The Chile invasion of Antofagasta, produced on 14 February of 1879 gave start to the War of the Pacific"
  • The Rough Guide to Bolivia, the author writes "Early the next year Chilean forces began the War of the Pacific, occupying the entire Bolivian coastline - where the population was in any case already two-thirds Chilean - and invading Peru, which was allied to Bolivia"
  • Andean Tragedy, the author writes "The War of the Pacific can be divided into six periods. The first, and shortest, began with Chile's capture of the Bolivian seaport of Antofagasta in February 1870 and ended a few days later when Santiago had occupied the rest of the Atacama Desert"
  • The United States and the Andean Republics: Peru, Bolivia, and Ecuador, the author writes "Chile broke off diplomatic relations and on February 14, 1879, landed troops that took possession of Antofagasta, thus triggering the War of the Pacific"
  • Chile: The Bradt Travel Guide, the author writes "The city [of Antofagasta] was occupied by Chile at the start of the war [of the pacific] and never looked back"
  • Chile and Easter Island, the author writes "War of the Pacific begins as Chileans occupy the port-city of Antofagasta"
  • Historical Dictionary of Chile, the author writes "Chile occupied Antofagasta in February 1879 (the immediate cause of the War of the Pacific)"
  • Lines in the Sand, the author writes "The nitrate bearing territories of Antofagasta and Tarapaca were the real and direct causes of the war," affirmed Chilean Minister of Foreign Affairs Jose Manuel Balmaceda in a circular issued from his office in December 1881"
  • Nation Shapes: The Story Behind the World's Borders, the author writes "The war began after Chile occupied the city of Antofagasta, which was Bolivia's only port on the Pacific Ocean"
Sources stating that the war started on another day or situation
  • [31] La guerra se desarrolló en varias etapas, siendo la primera la campaña marítima, en la que se produjo el famoso Combate Naval de Iquique.
  • [32] La primera etapa de la contienda se extendió hasta el 8 de octubre de 1879 y se caracterizó por la lucha por el dominio del mar entre las escuadras de Perú y Chile
  • [33] The war began at sea, when Chilean warships blockaded Peruvian and Bolivian ports.
  • [34], En torno a los Orígenes de La Guerra del Pacífico, Luis Ortega, El 5 de abril de 1879 se inició oficialmente una guerra que por cinco años enfrentó a Bolivia y Perú, por un lado, y a Chile, por otro.
  • [35] Más tarde, el 5 de abril de ese mismo año, cuando Perú reconoció la existencia de un tratado secreto con Bolivia, Chile decidió declarar la guerra a ambos países. Así, comienza la Guerra del Pacífico.
  • [36] Chile no quería ir a la guerra, pero cuando quedó al descubierto que en 1873 Bolivia había firmado con el Perú un pacto secreto que los obligaba a respaldarse mutuamente ante "toda agresión del exterior", el ministro de Relaciones Exteriores chileno declaró que "la guerra es el único camino que nos queda".
  • [37] The "Saltpetre War," referring to the desert’s nitrate deposits, officially began in February 1879 when Bolivia threatened to tax a Chilean mining operation in the port city of Antofagasta and in doing so broke a recently agreed treaty
As you see, they are superficially mentions of the beginning of the war and some of them use confuse terms as "triggering", "first phase" (primera etapa), "immediate cause", etc. Others say nothing, like "The nitrate bearing territories of Antofagasta and Tarapaca were the real and direct causes of the war", others are travel guides or, like a book written by Mary Ellen Snodgrass, who holds degrees in English, Latin, psychology, and education of gifted children. She teaches English and Latin at Lenoir Rhyne University. It is simple WP:Cherrypicking.
WP::CHERRYPICKING states: In the context of editing an article, cherrypicking, in a negative sense, means selecting information without including contradictory or significant qualifying information from the same source and consequently misrepresenting what the source says. This applies both to quotations and to paraphrasings.
Sources with in-depth examination of the start of the war including contradictory or significant qualifying information
We also have known several valuable in-depth examinations giving a full account of the surrounding conditions of the 14. February regarding the begin of the war.
  • es:Nelson Manrique, "La guerra del pacífico: una revisión crítica." in a comment by Mariano Chiappe in [38] states that:
El acto de fuerza de chile en Antofagasta provocó una febril actividad diplomática. El gobierno peruano trató por todos los medios de conseguir que el conflicto se solucionara por medio de un arbitraje, pues sabía que de desencadenarse la guerra se veía inevitablemente implicado.
(transl.: The Chilean act of force started a frantic diplomatic activity. The Peruvian government tried by any means to resolve the conflict by mediation, for they know that if the war started, Peru would be inescapable envolved)
El Peru opto por las negociaciones, que no gusta a Bolivia. Tambien Chile esperaba o alentaba un golpe militar en Bolivia, que al parecer, le iba a favorecer. Todo ello inclino a Chile a aceptar la mediacion, pero esta, no podia prolongarse por mucho tiempo, puesto que favorecia al Peru en sus apresto militares de ultima hora. Ademas, Chile necesitaba un poco de tiempo para presentar al Peru como "perfido" y preparar psicologicamente a su pueblo sobre la guerra que ya era inevitable (transl.:Peru chose to mediate ..., Chile needed time to ...)
El presidente chileno el 24 de marzo de 1879 manifestaba a Lavalle [the Peruvian mediatior] lo siguiente: ... pero que no existiendo realmente ningun motivo de guerra entre Peru y Chile, cuyos comunes intereses exigian el siempre ir de acuerdo, no veia por que se debia llegar a tan dolorosa extremidad y que todo podia evitarse con la simple declaracion de neutralidad por parte del Peru (transl.: ... Pinto said: there are no reasons to make a war ... all what we need is a Peruvian declaration of neutrality ...) (primary source but cited by a secondary source)
Lavalle en entrevista con Pinto [Chilean President] le manifestaba: "Pero asegurandole nuevamente por mi parte que esa declaracion de neutralidad que solicita del Peru, el Peru no debia, no podia, ni queria hacerla, y que veia con profundo pesar que las cosas se acercaban a un doloroso y sangriento termino. (primary source but cited by a secondary source)
Y la guerra se hizo presente en el Pacifico Sur. ( Transl.: And the war came to the South Pacific)
  • Farcau's "Ten Cents War", page 42, regarding the options after the 14 February 1879:
Only once piece remained to fall into place to determine whether a real war would now occur or whether some sort of deal might yet be struck. This was the question of whether or not Peru would honor the 1873 “secret” treaty and come to Bolivia’s aid.
… After all, no blood had yet been shed, and there would still be a substantial swath of B. territory separating Peru from Chile…. And was it not likely that, without Peru’s support, Bolivia would simply see the wisdom in acceding to Chilean demands and avoiding the war altogether?.
...Lavalle [Peruvian Mediatior] departed Lima on 22 February, well before the Bolivian declaration of war, but nothing irreversible was to occur for some time, so he did have some freedom of manoever in Santiago.
  • W. Sater "Andean Tragedy", regarding the events after the 14 February 1879:
page 28: Only on 5 April did Santiago reciprocate, plunging South America's west coast into what became known as the War of the Pacific, a conflict that lasted until 1884.
  • Fredrick B. Pike, "The United States and the Andean Republics: Peru, Bolivia, and Ecuador", we read (p. 128) that the occupation of Antofagasta was the "triggering" of the WotP. But in the next page he wrote "Mariano Ignacio Prado ... dispatched a mission to Santiago to seek a formula for preserving peace."
page 28 Chapter "La mediacion del Peru: La mision Lavalle": Es cierta, seguramente, la angustia del gobierno peruano para ganar tiempo; pero no sólo para que el país se preparara para la guerra, sino también, si era posible para aplazarla. (transl.: For sure, the efforts of the Peruvian government, not only to prepare the war but also to postpone it)
page 45: Ambos convinieron en que la guerra era inminente. (transl.: both [Chilean Foreign Affairs Minister Domingo Santa Maria and Peruvian Mediatior Lavalle] agreed that the war was imminent)
Reasons given in the discussion
War to become known as one, must entail some degree of confrontation using weapons and other military technology and equipment by armed forces employing military tactics and operational art within the broad military strategy subject to military logistics and it is generally characterised by extreme violence, social disruption and economic destruction. A simple occupation isn't a war, e.g. in the history of the Falkland islands there have been a French, a Spanish, a British, an Argentine, an US-American, an Argentine (again), a British (again), an Argentine (again) and a British occupation, that is 9 occupations but only one war.
All editors (except Darkness Shines) agree that on 14 February there was no fight and the Chilean troops were welcome in Antofagasta by the (Chilean 83%) majority of the population, and that the first battle of the war was the Battle of Topater on March 23, 1879 between Chile and Bolivia (27 killed) and that the Peruvian mediation continued until the first days of April 1879.
Sources vary on their definition of when the conflict began, on 14 February, with the naval campaign, with the Chilean Declaration of War (5. April), or "in February 1879 when Bolivia threatened to tax a Chilean mining operation".
The two defenders of the current protected version have only brought forward the argument of "(their) sources say that began on 14. February". They were unable to support based on RS that war actions began on that day. User Darkness Shines tried even to convince us that there had been a "Combat of Antofagasta", but he delivered no RS for that. Such a combat has never occurred as Eddy states: [39] Is true that Antofagasta was happy to have Chile take control.
On the other hand, those who prefer a nuanced description of the events have considered a wide and deep analysis of the reliable sources.
These sources state, with different wording ("if the war started", "a real war would occur", "after all, no blood had yet shed", "to postpone it", "but nothing irreversible was to occur for some time", "to seek a formula for preserving peace", or "the war was imminent") that weeks after the 14. February there was no war between Chile and Bolivia-Peru.
Consensus
The majority of editors voted for a nuanced description of the events on 14 February in the LEDE, but in my honest opinion, the consensus arises from the quality of the sources and reasons delivered by the majority of the editors.
Supporting a nuanced description of the events on 14 February in the LEDE:
  1. IP-user says [40] I would personally want the article reverted back to its state before the edit by eduardo [Ramirez]
  2. Markbassett says [41] First, for WP purposes the date of start is whatever the academic consensus says it is. Second, if there is no dominant date then you can just state what consensus facts are including not naming a date.
  3. Chelios123 says [42] I agree with the sentiment by Markbassett and it is true that February the 14th 1879 is no doubt one of the pivotal dates of the war, but I do not think this article is improved by using the phrase 'war started on' if you were to take into account the book "the 10 cents war" by Bruce W. Farcau which is a very thorough account of the war. I don't see any shortcomings by stating that on February 14 Chilean forces occupied Antofagasta and later on Bolivia declared war or something else to that nature
  4. Keysanger (me) I support IP-User's proposal
Supporting no mention of other facts in the LEDE (The war began on 14. February 1879. (Finish))
  1. Darkness Shines says [43] The war began when reliable sources say it did, and for this war the sources say the war began on February 14, 1879.
  2. Eduardo Eddy Ramirez. [44] I think evidence overwhelming favors war start on February 14 1879, when Chile invades Antofagasta

Best regards, --Keysanger (Talk) 10:52, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose reverting at all, RFCs run for thirty days, and I see no consensus to remove well cited information. Darkness Shines (talk) 22:08, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not done: This RfC looks a bit contentious, so it should probably be closed by an uninvolved editor before any edit requests are carried out. (Edit requests are only for edits that already have consensus.) If it doesn't look like there will be any more discussion in the RfC, I would list it for closure at WP:ANRFC (although it seems to be a bit backlogged at the moment). Also, Keysanger, Darkness Shines has a point about the walls-o'-text; you'll probably find that you can persuade more people if you keep your posts shorter. Best — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 14:15, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Article protected

Protected until 27 September 2014 per this complaint at WP:AN3 (permalink). Protection can be lifted if consensus is reached. During the protection, you can use {{Edit protect}} here on the talk page to ask for changes to be made that have consensus. EdJohnston (talk) 20:44, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  1. ^ Snodgrass, Mary Ellen (2013). Isabel Allende: A Literary Companion. McFarland. p. 312. ISBN 978-0786471270.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:War_of_the_Pacific&oldid=620795901"