Talk:War of the Pacific

Several Historical facts edited & information added

I only have edited some historical facts, erased some false and non neutral affirmations, such as “...Chile's imperialist ambitions in the region.”

Also I have added some more detailed information. If you whish I can post the Bibliographic sources from which I have got the information

Forestin

Fell free to make any sugestion on this page. But also you must have consideration about what is false and what is not:

• Chile did have problems with Argentina and Bolivia over its borders, so the claim of "Imperialistic Ambitions" can be justified in that sence.

• I have read the article myself and I don't find anything false. Maybe it needs to be more detailled, but at any moment anything wrong has been stated.Messhermit 02:22, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• • Messhersmit, how come you want to have a NPOV article, if it is almost the 100% peruvian perspective written on this page?(logical, you are peruvian) There is no sense of discussing the only correct view, as this is only possible by defining general historical points where both parties agree. EVERY JUDEGMENT DONE BY YOU (Chilean Imperialists, shameful etc...) on this page is not appopiate and will cause people to change it, this is not the sense of this page, but reproduce historic events and show historical titles. Historical events on this page should always be done without any characterization. Thanks Upsala 16:28, 18 Jul 2005

Forestin, it would be very useful if you could state clearly here what in the article you are contesting. -- Jmabel | Talk 06:08, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)

OK I will specify the parts:

Messhermit, from you profile I see that you understand Spanish. So I would like to invite you to join or at least take a look at the Spanish discussion about the Pacific War since it is much more advanced then this one.

http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guerra_del_Pacifico

• I will.

Before I go into details about the article I would like to respond to one of Messhermit comments:

If we look at the definition about "Imperialistic behavior" we will find that it is related to Imperialism it self.

"Imperialism is a policy of extending the control or authority over foreign entities as a means of acquisition and/or maintenance of empires, either through direct territorial or through indirect methods of exerting control on the politics and/or economy of other countries. The term is used by some to describe the policy of a country in maintaining colonies and dominance over distant lands, regardless of whether the country calls itself an empire."

Chile had sever border issues with Argentina & Bolivia. But Chile didn’t had any ambitions over those territories.

• A bold claim, certainly. Atacama and Patagonia are clear examples of those disputes wih Argentina and Bolivia.

• • A bold claim? this is a very subjective judgment from your side, Messher. Fact is that The Atacama and Patagonia were the last "corners" of southamerican Continent to define exact borderlines between the new independent nations, mainly because these territories were less populated, also called "despoblado", and they were of less interest in the beginning of the 19th century. Upsala 16:28, 18 Jul 2005

Finally the borders between Chile & Argentina couldn’t have been established more fair since that was the border that had been established between the Vireinato de la Plata & the Capitania de Chile, at the time where they still where Colonies.

• If those borderlines would have been defined as you are saying, then Chile have no right over the Patagonia or the Atacama Territories, since the "Capitania General de Chile" was a small dependency of the Viceroyalty of Peru.

• • Fact is that Patagonia was not officially belonging to the spanish colonies before independence of LA countries. Spaniards had fought a long time the "Guerra del Arauco" against Mapuche/Araucanian tribes in the Patagonia, and they lost, which was finalized with the recognizing of the southern Patagonia as the borderland. Spaniards therefore called the region of BioBio "la Frontera". Patagonia was later seized by the 2 newly independent countries. The dispute between Argentina and Chile are based on "virtual" souvereignity of the spanish crown over this territory, which was never under complete spanish control. The "dependency" of Chile from the Viceroyalty of Peru is of no interest, as Chile as Capitania had its own authority. Furthermore, Chile, already as an independent nation in 1817 claimed the Atacama region, while Peru and Bolivia were still spanish colonies for a long time after that point. Last, but not least, even the spanish based "Utis Possidetis" does not give Bolivia the right over the coastal region, as this was defined by the "Leyes de India" promulgated in 1680 and in force until 1810, by the spanish crown under S.M. Carlos de España, seeing the "Audencia of Charcas", the initial Bolivia before it's independece, as a mediterranean country without access to the pacific, which had to pass territory belonging to the Audiencia of Lima ,in order to reach the Ocean. This is an unmovable fact, on which Chile bases its rights over coastal area during the beginning of 19th century, and which is later claimed by Bolivia over already existing chilean rights. Upsala 16:28, 18 Jul 2005

If Chile would have had an Imperialistic ambition it never would have ceased the territory neither to Argentina nor to Bolivia.

• Chile and Argentina were on the brink of war, and the issue about the Patagonian territory was settled without a direct comfrontation. Patagonia was divided (Something that still outrage some hard-line chilean politicians). About the issue with Bolivia, it evolved in to full scale war and the territory was conquered and annexed. Chile did not gave up any claim, but rather expanded its borders. Most Historians will agree with this statement.

On the other side there are theories that Bolivia & Peru where the ones with an Imperialistic attitude.

• Unfortunately, that is another bold claim. Bolivia (until 1980) was in constant political caos, wich prevented it to claim any important position on the Balance of Power. Peru on the other side, attempted a mediation in the conflic, sending diplomatics in peace missions. Chile declare war on April 5th, 19879. As you can see, Peru was reluctant to follow the secret alliance with Bolivia, since its government known that it was in no position to face war.

• • Peru played the role of the "independent" mediator between Bolivia and Chile: Chile was first not aware of the secret alliance of both northern countries. This was discovered, and the the reaction was natural and obvious. Upsala 16:28, 18 Jul 2005

Prior to the war & the discovery of saltpeter minerals in the region Peru was biggest Guano exporting country. But with the appearance of the Saltpeter the price of the guano dropped & over the night Peru had 600000 tones of Guano stored in its Harbors. Of course this leaded to a major economical crisis. Bolivia on the other side wasn’t very pleased with the situation in the region either since they couldn’t tax Chilean Corporations. Bolivia, encouraged by its Military alliance with Peru, decided to impose the tax since it was sure that in case of war the Alliance would be superior to Chile, defeating them.

• That could be a claim against the Hilarion Daza Administration. About the guano, it is true that saltpeter indeed appeared on Tarapaca and Atacama, but at any moment those territories (at least the Peruvian Province) were a recognised part of the Chilean State. Also, you must remember that at those times, Guano prices could have dropped, but at any time there were wortless. Saltpeter was indeed going to totaly replace Guano, but in a couple of years more.

That of course is only a theory, just like the one of the Imperialistic ambitions of Chile over the region.

But now to the article it self.

Basically I have structured the Text a little more understandable.

For example I cutted out:

"The government of Bolivia wanted to levy taxes on the commercial operators exploiting the area, who happened to be Chilean and British."

I cutted it out because it give a false view of the events of the war from the beginning. But I left that not just that way but specified the causes of the War with details about the treaties between Chile & Bolivia which where the cause of the war.

• Are you denying that there were British investors on most of the Chilean companies working at Atacama? That is indeed a baseless argument. The Chilean Civil War was product of this influence.

After that cutout I putted an inside view of that Chile & Bolivia even up today disagree on the issue if Bolívar had or had not an exit to the Pacific.

• The argument about Bolivian coastline does not have place on this article. Bolivia indeed have a recognised coastline. And as you have said, Chile invaded the Atacama Territory.

• • Bolivia indeed had a recognised coastline for some years only, being more accurate, between 1874 and 1879. But this souverignity was bounded with contractual mandatory rules, which Bolivia had to respect. This treaty was signed by both parties, Bolivia and Chile. Breaking one of these regulations meant the annulation of the treaty, meaning that Chile would recover its old titles over the territory, which indeed happened.Upsala 16:28, 18 Jul 2005

Following that I got into the treaties between Chile & Bolivia, which are a vital part for the war. Basically I putted in more details

For example:

"In 1878, Bolivia, under President Hilarión Daza, tried to increase the taxes of the Chilean Antofagasta Nitrate Company, over the protests of the Chilean government of President Aníbal Pinto. When Bolivia threatened to confiscate the company's property, Chilean armed forces occupied the port city of Antofagasta on February 14 1879."

That part doesn’t even mention the treaty of 1874, which is a vital cause for the war & the reason why Chile decided to intervene.

• Please stated a Neutral Page that can show the entire document. As far as I am concern, there is no clause stating that Chile had indeed any sovereign over the territory. Also, In internationals affais, I find that claim baseless and caotic.

• • The treaty itself did not include any clause, where it is stated that this territory was under chilean sovereignity before, as Bolivia did not recognize it. Neither it was included that it was under Bolivian sovereignity before! Both parties would then never have defined a treaty, because both parties claimed this territory, that was the final aim of this treaty, to solve the issue. Chile in that time saw its main interest in protecting its mining industry in the disputed region, and this was cleared by the rules setup in the treaty, concerning taxation. Any rule defined on this treaty was important, and any break meant a violation of this treaty. My personal comment/opinion appart: I think those treaties (1866 and 1874) were signed by both parties under faithful perspectives and hopes, in order to solve pending issues solidarily. Between 1860 and 1870, Pacific countries had fought against spanish ambitions to reconquer the "old colonies" starting with Peru. The Pacfic nations were victorious and in in an euphoric atmosphere did also not think about consequences. Therefore from the chilean perespective, it was a major perfidy from its northern neighbours, that this treaty, signed with chiles good will, was violated by Bolivia on chiles back. (secret alliance with Peru and then following the violation and provocation, having in mind that Chile would snap the bait, and include mecanism of Peru as shield again Chileans.)Upsala 16:28, 18 Jul 2005

The 1874 Treaty stated that no new taxes could be levied in the region for 10 years. That was the official reason given by Chile to intervene in Antofagasta.

Then we have:

"Argentina was invited to be a member of this Alliance, since it had a territorial dispute with Chile regarding the whole region of Patagonia. A settlement was arranged, but Argentina never fulfilled its obligations."

That is completely FALSE. The Argentinean parlament rejected from the beginning to be a member in a Secret Alliance. One of the reasons was that would have caused an immediate war with Brazil.

• You are right, it is not arranged in an accurate way. The settlement was between Chile and Argentina, and Argentina droped to its intentions to join the Peru/Bolivian Alliance. But at any moment anything FALSE its stated. Brazil was probably more concern about the danger that is having as neighbors 3 countries in alliance, not about the war thar Chile was going to start.

So what where the obligations that Argentina didn't fulfilled?

Then we have that the Peruvian Navy was unable to face war. Well, the Peruvian Navy was just as unable to face such a war, as the Chilean vessels were.

• Mmmm... I wonder if the "Blanco Encalada" and the "Cochrane" were not considerated state-of-the-art vessels for its times. "Huascar" was from 1865, "Manco Capac" and "Atahualpa" since the American Civil War. As you can see, the Peruvian Navy was in no position to defy the Chilean one. Since the Guano Boom, no money was left to the military or the navy, in part also becouse of the rise of the first civilian government in Peru.

• • Even if Peru might have been in economic trouble, there was no comparison like jowerdays. Chile is nowerday a powerful nation in the region compared to Peru, but in those times, Chile was a poor country compared with Peru, last "recently" was released into independence by the spanish as their main and central colony of Southmaerica. Even a weak Peru was wealthier then an intermediate Chile. You also forget the other peruvian steel monitor Independencia, which meant peruvian advantage over chilean wooden and old vessels in the seas Upsala 16:28, 18 Jul 2005

Then we have:

"In contrast, the Chileans (encouraged by British interests) had well-prepared armed forces: a modern navy supplemented a well-trained and equipped army."

The Chilean army wasn’t well trained & equipped because it had ambition to go to war, but because they had faced continues war in the south of Chile since the Colonization of the territories. That is something that should be added.

• I totally disagree on the latest statement. Any military analist will say that the Chilean Army was indeed prepare for war. Peru and Bolivia were in shamefull conditions. Also, what "colonization" are we talking about? Patagonia was a disputed territory, so Colonization would mean that it was a recognized part of the Republic of Chile, wich was not. I find hard to believe also that the chilean army was in shape just for those "colonizations".

• • Chile was definitely not in shape for military adventures, I even go further: The chileans didn't give much attention to this war until the heroic appereance of Arturo Prat. Fascinated by his heroic defence of his positions and his heroic death, Chileans were motivated to fight for their rights. Concerning colonisation: there WAS colonisation in the south of Chile, and also the resistance of tribes. Eventhough there were ongoing disputes between Argentina and Chile about "spanish map heritage" over this territory, you have to remember that this part of Southamerica was not settled by spanish/criollos, but Mapuches/Araucanos and other wary tribes. Upsala 16:28, 18 Jul 2005

Goes on:

"Two of the newest and most powerful Chilean battleships - Blanco Encalada and Cochrane - had already started blockading the Bolivian coast."

For Chile, who considered that Bolivia had broken the treaty of 1874, that Coast passed back to be Chilean. For that the ships where Guarding Chilean territory. But since Bolivia Considered it to be there territory they where blocking Bolivian territory. For that & since both nation claimed that territory to be there’s it would be much better to denominate it as the "territory in dispute". That way it keeps neutral, between Chile & Bolivia.

• Another Mistake is made, since it shows the "Chilean POV", wich is precicely what Wiki is pretending to avoid. In the eyes of the world, a blockade was stablished, and once again, I ask for a document that can state that Chile was sovereing on Atacama. Once again, Bolivia indeed have a coastline that even the chilean government recognize, that is a fact that should not be distortionated.

• Easy one! Again, check the "Leyes de India" promulgated by the SPANISH crown in 1680, where the "Audience of Charcas" was defined as mediterranean ! Upsala 16:28, 18 Jul 2005. "Disputed territory" is the absolute correct formulation, any different definition means taking part of one side.Upsala 16:28, 18 Jul 2005

Then, in the ground campaign I added more details. For example at that time Tarapaca was no city. Hell even today it is no city but a very small village. Also the battle was not at the village of Tarapaca but in the whole valley.

• Another mistake, since you are considering the demographic factor. Tarapaca can be a small town in Chile now in our days, but Tarapaca can be considerate a city on standars of the Time. Also, The troops that retreated from Pisagua indeed march toward the city. Lima did not have more than 300.000 habitants at that time.

Also the numbers indicated as now are absolutely wrong. It happens to be that I have direct access to military documents from that time of the Chilean army. Those documents include official communications, orders & battle information. Also detailed information about the composition of the Peruvian army, documents obtained by the Chilean Military during the Occupation of Lima. The numbers & information that I putted regarding that is for that correct since I obtained it directly from Chilean & Peruvian reports.

• Documents on the peruvian side state my point on Tarapaca. The Chileans have supperiority both on terrain and manpower, and they lose. Figures can differ, but that is the truth. Also, During the ocupation of Lima the city was vandalized and most of the info could have been lost. So I don't believe that having documents that could have been forged (not stating that indeed they were) on the chilean side can actually show an accurate view of the Peruvian Army.

After that, the decisive battle was at Tacna & not Arica.

• "Alto de la Alianza" was an important battle, but the Battle of Arica is not forgotten. A would-be Argentinian President (Roque Saenz Peña) participate on the defence of the city, as well as other officials that refuse to surrender to the Chilean army. It it was not important, then why the Chilean Army send at least 3000 soldiers to take it?. Both battlesare important.

Yep, but the battle of Tacna is not that developed in the article. After all, Arica was more or less a mopping-up operation, and 3000 soldiers was a relatively small number after Tacna (fought by forces 3 times that size IIRC) Tacna was a decisive battle: Bolivian forces abandoned the war effort, Arica was more or less doomed (if not taken by assault it could had sieged).

But Arica is for both sides often more remembered. By Chile because they took the hill in les then an hour. By Peru because the defenders fought until the last man.

• It appears that your point is to prove that the Chilean version is accurate? Peruvians have a deep respect for the Battle of Arica. It looks like you are trying to minimize the defenders.

Same goes for the campaign in the Sierra. I added just more detailed information.

• "Campaña de la Breña was a failure for the Chilean Army. That is true, and I see no point in stated the contrary.

Well, in that failure the last battle (Huamachuco) ended with the destruction of the peruvian army of Caceres. After that (and an sucessful expedition to take Arequipa), Peru signed the treaty of Ancon. In the present redaction the development makes no sense: After Peruvian forces successful defend their land and inflict defeats in the invaders, they sign a treaty that meant losing territory. The campaign of the Breña was strategically a chilean army success -although very costly: Peru was forced to sign a treaty ceding land.

Well, I didn’t change the meaning of the article, just added & corrected some information. Feel free to ask questions.

The thing is that as it is now, it is neither complete or correct.

I would apretiate if you could indicate me which parts you think are inapropiated for for the article or wrong.

Of course sources & reasons for that woul be great.

Forestin

• I have answer most of your question. As a compliment, It worries me that your work is to shape the article in a chilean way, and not a NPOV one. Neutrality above all.

Messhermit 03:49, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• • Hi Messhermit, you now have my response on you point of view. Regards! Upsala 16:28, 18 Jul 2005

• At your request, I have read the article in spanish. It seems to me that the article in question is in the same state, and that the disscussion is almost in the same place. As you can se, there are other chilean users that have tried to modify the article in some disrespectfull ways, and that is clearly what I'm trying to prevent. Let us work toguether in order to make this a NPOV page, and that Peruvian, Bolivians and Chileans views of this shamefull war can be properly stated and none of them minimize. Messhermit 14:55, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• • Agree that we should find a common point for all, but I think that disrespectful judgements and incorrect interpretations against Chile are also out of place and should not be tolerated. Upsala 16:28, 18 Jul 2005

Major revert

I just did something I rarely do, and reverted this back about a week. Could this article be improved? Sure. But this was not improvement. I would love to see perspectives from the three countries involved, identified as such, and decently cited. Although I'm not putting a ton of time on Wikipedia these days, I'll try to stay active here and facilitate. In particular, I strongly suggest that edits that claim to be factual corrections be discussed here on the talk page: I have no reason to believe that the article is it stood/stands has its basic facts wrong. -- Jmabel | Talk 22:33, Apr 23, 2005 (UTC)

Although the different perspectives of the war are important to show, the point is that it's more important to show factual information rather than simple POV. MarshalN20 (talk) 04:06, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

"Casualties"

"Chile had 474 casualties": does this mean dead, or dead and wounded? "Casualties" is actually mentioned in Wikipedia:Words to avoid precisely because of this ambiguity. -- Jmabel | Talk 19:07, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)

Indeed, it is controvertial. Mostly because in this battle, both versions (chilean and peruvian) are different. Messhermit 20:01, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The box on the page right top lists 30,000 casualties on each side, however, linked documentation uses figures 1/10th that. Does this include civilian casualties not indicated? It is several times the size of the engaged forces, so highly suspect. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 169.237.82.76 (talk • contribs) 2 January 2007.

Political edit; I'd like to revert

The recent edits by User:194.203.212.214 look to me to be deliberately (Chilean) POV; some of the deletions seem egregious, the writing is uneven, and some passages are made obscure in an effort to avoid any wording that suggests that Bolivia ever may have had a claim to any coastal regions. I'd be inclined to go back to the version before this (although there may be some passages worth keeping and I'm open to discussion). I'll give at least 24 hours for others to weigh in before I do anything.

• I agree. Messhermit 15:10, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

• • Hi, Jmabel, I think it is rather egregious to completely delete a work like you did, without even giving argumentation on each case. For you it might look like a Chilean POV, but you maybe don't know, this page was originally created from peruvian POV (at least I guess you haven't overseen this gigantic peruvian flag in the beginning)This article is describes oviously Bolivia and Peru as victims of the war. Can't you at least debate the points with real arguments? 24 hours left for somebudy to react, (so that nobody can read this?) is quite a short termed period, don't you think? I hope you do not try to take part of any non-NPOV.

Anyway, I am willing to discuss this with you, let's get started:

1."Chile gained substantial mineral-rich territory in the conflict, leaving Bolivia a land-locked country AGAIN and annexing the formerly Peruvian province of Tarapacá and the formerly TEMPORARILY Bolivian province of Litoral."

• • According to the Utis Possidetis agreed by all Latinamerican countries, all dependent nations from spain would keep its borders in the day of independence. In the "leyes de Indias", promulgated by the spanish King S.M Carlos II in 1680, the "Audiencia de Charcas", the former Bolivia, was defined without any sovereign access to the pacfic ocean. It even defined that, in case of transport of goods via the sea-way, coming from the A. d. Charcas, it had to pass the port of Arica, then belonging to the the Audiencia de Lima. This law was in force until 1810.

The first time that the coast of Atacama combined with the A. d. Charcas/Bolivia was mentioned, was in 1825, the day of independence of Bolivia, whereas Simon Bolivar defined it's border over already existing and independent (1817) chilean teritory (which was not accpeted by chilean government), last one defined by the "Utis Possidetis" in force until 1810. This region firstly became legaly bolivian in 1866 (!), after the treaty between Chile and Bolivia defined the cease of territory towards Bolivia, in order that last land would have access to the ocean for the first time. You must consider that the war between Spain on one side and Peru, Chile and Bolivia on the other side (Guerra de España 1865-66) had finshed recently with victory on the side of the latinamerican allies, and in an euphoric atmosphere of bolivarism, this treaty was signed, and Chile accepted this cease. Nevertheless, this treaty included regulations, which Bolivia had to held for a period of transicion (25 years), don't forget that this region was inhabited by 95% of chilean population and same counts for companies settled there. You can verify all this information by your side.

2. "The government of Bolivia wanted to levy taxes on the commercial operators exploiting the area, who happened to be Chilean and British, BUT THIS MEANT TO BE A VIOLATION OF THE TREATY SIGNED bY BOLIVIA AND CHILE, WHICH DEFINED THE CESSATION OF THE DISPUTED TERRITORY TOWARDS BOLIVIA."

• • Why do you delete this very important sentence? It is even the most important sentence in combination with the war of the pacific ! It is the cause of the war! Not even peruvians or bolivians would delete it...

3. "National borders in the region had never been definitively established; the two countries negotiated a treaty that recognized the 24th parallel as their boundary in 1874... "

• • Do you doubt this year? which year is the right then? Why trying to desinform? It's just the year, where both parties signed the last border treaty before the war! Do you really want to debate this? The only thing you could debate, is adding the treaty of 1866

• • in work**

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.203.215.26 (talk • contribs) 29 Aug 2005

I'm open to discussion on any specific changes to the article, and it is quite possible that the majority of your edits are good ones. But you seem to want to know why I reverted, so here goes.

For starters, it's one thing to take an article that you think is one-sided and indicate where historians from different countries disagree (which really should be done with citation, although I'd have to say that at the moment this article is pretty lacking in citation all around); it's another entirely to remove one view and simply replace it with another. Clearly there is disagreement among historians over the legitimacy of Bolivia's littoral claims. As far as I can tell, the article before you got there didn't take sides on this point. You edited it to simply say that the Chilean claim was correct and the Bolivian one not. That was the first edit in sequence, and I will readily admit that it got me off to a start of being very suspicious of your edits.

For another thing, some of what was added was really poorly written. Take, for example, "but this meant to be a violation of the treaty signed by Bolivia and Chile, which defined the cesation of the disputed territory towards Bolivia." I would guess (but guess is an operative word here) that the first phrase means something like "but this was a violation...", and I can't even confidently guess what word is meant by "cesation". Clearly not "cessation" (termination). Possibly "cession", an uncommon word meaning to surrender one's claim to a piece of land? Possibly something else entirely.

I also find it suspicious when someone new to an article removes, without comment and without pasting the removed content to the discussion page, a statement like "Huáscar rescued the survivors from Esmeralda, who gave its captain, Miguel Grau, the nickname of "Knight of the Seas". In contrast, the survivors of the Independencia wreck were shot while still in the water by the Chilean Navy." I am not defending the merit of this passage: quite likely it doesn't belong in the article, at least not as it is written. But it had been there for some time, and you don't remove substantive material by deleting it silently: you remove it by explaining what is wrong with it.

I could go on, but I won't. The point is, I made a process-based decision that someone (you) had come in here more with the agenda of pushing a point of view than of improving the article; I may well have been wrong. I raised my doubts here, giving an opportunity to defend the edit; 24 hours later the only person who had chimed in was Messhermit agreeing with me. So I reverted.

Again, I'm open to discussion on any specific changes to the article, and it is quite possible that the majority of your edits are good ones. In any case, when making substantive changes where there has not been anything like a consensus reached on the talk page, I strongly suggest that you give coherent edit summaries; when you cut substantive material, typically you should bring it to the talk page (I am probably myself guilty for not bringing your material item by item to the talk page); and you really ought to cite sources, but, again, this article is very weak in that respect.

By the way, please if you are doing substantive work here, open an account, sign your posts, etc., instead of editing from a shifting IP address. I would certainly have gotten hold of you to discuss before reverting your work, but with no account for you, I had no way to do so.

-- Jmabel | Talk 06:08, August 30, 2005 (UTC)

I see that meanwhile someone else has made a set of what appear to be more evenhanded edits, incorporating some of these issues; I also see that this is all still being done without any real citations. -- Jmabel | Talk 07:01, August 30, 2005 (UTC)

• That would be me, TopQuark. I do regret the lack of citations and will provide whenever I am able to and, by all means, please feel free to set me straight. Some issues in my mind:

• Capt. Grau was indeed nicknamed el Caballero de los Mares (Knight of the Seas or Gentleman of the Seas - same spanish word) by opponents. No english citation available. This fact is not disputed, but IMHO detracts from the war timeline; I shall include it in Grau's wiki entry (from which it is oddly missing).

• I don't find

• A section on notable war commanders is probably needed on this wiki to the same effect - this war did see the elevation of several of them (Bolognesi, Carrera, Grau, Prat) in their home countries and their status lasts to date.

• I agree.

• Huáscar's exploits should probably be removed (at least replaced with a comprehensive list of battles). I have already included and expanded a bit at the Huáscar (ship) wiki.

• I Disagree with that statement. Huascar exploits were extremely important in the campaing, since it was because of those actions that the Chilean Navy was in a constant check mate. They were unable to advance or invade Peru at least 6 months.

• Have not seen documents (Peruvian nor Chilean) citing Covadonga firing on the swimming crew of Independencia. Some accounts (attributed to Peruvian Capt. Moore) do mention Independencia and Covadonga trading cannon and gunfire after the wreck; that Independencia actively kept its colors up; that crew abandoned ship in a disorderly manner. Other accounts (attr. Capt. Grau) describe Independencia as motiontess but not sunk and that extent of damage was only evident after close inspection. It is likely that Covadonga fired on a ship perceived as hostile, not surrendering and possibly disabled temporarily.

• Covadonga fired against the Independencia once it realice that it was unable to continue with the battle. Once it distinguished the figure of Huascar, it ran away.

• I am digging through spanish wikisource for letters and reports to cite. Some statements by M. Grau (from other sources) are quite interesting (rallying speech, after action reports, letter to Prat's widow, warning to skipper of Magallanes) and mostly point to a chivalric view of war. These probably do not belong here but to M. Grau's or a new wiki entry.

• Those are important military actions that Admiral Grau did during the Pacific Campaing, proved by prominent historians. I don't see any POV in including them.

• I regard History of Peru infobox as non-neutral, I am looking forward to replace it as soon as I can put together a suitable war infobox with basic stats on all three combatants.

• I believe that ignoring the War of the Pacific as an important part of Peruvian (or Chilean or Bolivian) History is a terrible mistake, and the fact that the peruvian template is the only one in the page does not mean any POV. If a Chilean and Bolivian Template can go there, it would be a nice addition to the article.

• Looking for material documenting the British and US involvement in the war, through commercial or political pressure.

• As it will be proved, even the Chilean Civil War was result of British interest.

In short, I am in for the long haul. I appreciate the opportunity to help, and am grateful if any inaccurate comment on my part is pointed out.

- Cheers, TopQuark 09:18, 30 August 2005 (UTC) - Cheers, Messhermit 01:49, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

• In regard to your latest comments

• On additions to Admiral Grau's wiki. It will be there, worry not :-)
• Regarding his speeches and letters, you may misunderstand me, all these documents reveal the character of a great officer, gentleman and warrior on any side of the whole war -I do not think there was another so praised by friend and foe. I believe however that this is a lot of future material, and that much of this gives better insight into the man rather than the war. Probably the right way to address this (especially if translation of letters is provided) is beyond scope of this single article. Admiral Grau's wiki entry does not, as a matter of fact, do full justice to this.
• I wholeheartedly agree with the importance of Huáscar's exploits, this is undisputed. I wonder (thus, am not sure) whether there is a better way to show them all. I have included this list at the Huáscar (ship) wiki and expanded, but have not removed from here.
• Covadonga indeed retreated at the sight of Huascar, this is undisputed. Confusion seems to be as to whether Covadonga fired on "survivors [...] still in the water" (the original entry), or fired on "Independencia once it realized it was unable to continue with the battle" (your comment) or fired on "a ship perceived as hostile, not surrendering and possibly disabled temporarily" (my comment). I may add that Covadonga did take advantage of the situation (opponent's biggest ship beached within cannon range!), the fact is undisputed that she did fire on Independencia after it beached. But it is unclear whether Independencia was helpless or surrendered , and whether this was evident from a distance. It is said that Captain Moore would not surrender and still put up a fight, and that Huáscar had to come up close to learn her true status. It would therefore be unfair to present any of the original comment, or yours, or mine, as neutral, beyond the fact that firing took place after beaching.

In short, some of my comments are about presentation rather than content. If detailed information is included for one side, same level of detail will eventually be demanded by all sides. Including all the detail for all sides will probably result in an article with three flags side-by-side, three infoboxes mentioning their long history and, among others, the Aymara, Chavín and Mapuche cultures, all letters significant to the war, all pictures and paintings, etc. It would also probably be a very long and difficult article to read (although perhaps a good book).

Note also that I am just commenting on this, as I do not have a good answer right now. I will submit any new idea if I think it improves or neutralizes the article.

- Cheers, TopQuark 10:01, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Attemp against my contributions

As something curious, I recieve a treat from someone that didn't like my contributions to this article. I recieve this in my E-mail:

• hola q tal... una sugerencia..

intenta no postear mucho, ni re-escribit cosas en la wikipedia. tus intenciones son muy buenas, pero a veces no es muy POV. mas datos duros, fuentes serian mejor.

I'm a serious person who does not post irrelevant text or false information. Each one of my contributions is carefully reserched and consulted with several books. I WILL NOT stop posting in Wikipedia. Messhermit 01:49, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Don't publish your e-mail YOU STUPID--190.22.8.78 14:32, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Structural changes

Hi all. A great deal of care has clearly gone into this article in the past, and there is room for additional information and improvement. I feel, however, that the current structure does not fully support some additions (i.e. where adding info would not improve the article) and would therefore like to adjust it, organizing existing content slightly different way and adding a couple of new sections.

Now, I realize this may be a sensitive issue, as significant effort seems to have gone already into writing, neutralizing (and fighting over) the article so far, hence I would like to gather comments and ideas in advance before unknowingly stepping on anyone's toes.

The plan is:

• Origins of the war
• The War

• Naval Campaign
• Land Campaign
• Occupation (or Sierra campaign?)

• Aftermath

• Peace terms
• Long-term consequences

• Characteristics of the war (new section)

• Strategy (describe the theatre of operations, the importance of naval operations on communication and supply, the influence of navies on the war, etc. basically why the war fas fought as it was)
• Gaining popular support (describe how this is the one of the first wars where the sense of patria trumps the sense of caudillo, how countries showcased war actions to achieve this)

• Prominent military commanders (new section) (one-liners listing the main actors and countries)
• See also
• References
• External links

All existing content would be left in place for this change (although some of it moved around). Two new sections would be included as described.

Any comments? TopQuark 16:04, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

• Given your edits so far, I trust your judgment. All I'd add to that is that there should probably be more emphasis on the effect on the civilian population, especially of the countries on the losing side. -- Jmabel | Talk 06:51, September 3, 2005 (UTC)
• The structure is basically the same as the old one (but if we can improve it, it would be great). Also, I believe that Occupation of Peru would be a more accurate name (since Bolivia didn't suffer the same fate). Anyways, It is a good idea to add about the Military Leaders. Messhermit 05:44, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
  • I appreciate the trust and feedback; expect the changes soon (taken me a while to fill the new sections). I will include some notes on technology (been looking up some of these and, incidentally, goes right on the issues below!) but may be at loss on the impact on civilians. TopQuark 13:12, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

About the ships

It's stated that "Bolivia had no navy and Peru faced an economic collapse that left its navy and army without proper training or budget." (true) "Most of its warships were old and unable to face battle, leaving only the ironclads Huáscar and Independencia ready." (almost true. Perú still had several ships in somewhat good conditions, SPECIALLY when you consider chilean ships) "In contrast, the Chileans (encouraged by British interests) had well-prepared armed forces: a modern navy supplemented a well-trained and equipped army." (almost not true. Armed forces were well prepared (due to the war in the south against Mapuches) but all armed forces in Chile were short on supplies (we had to buy provisions urgently)) "Two of the newest and most powerful Chilean battleships - Blanco Encalada and Cochrane - had already started operating on the Bolivian and Peruvian coast." (true) It's true that they where the newest but there should be an statement that says that they where no match against the peruvian ships: Huáscar and Independencia. This two ships where fast but if you remember when they won against Huascar (Independencia was lost... let's say... stupidly...) they had to round it several times shooting at it and they only won when they hit the rudder of Huascar. If Independencia had been there too, probably the war would've been very different. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.42.177.66 (talk • contribs) 10 Sept 2005

• • Independencia and Huascar were no match for Blanco Encalada and Cochrane. In the first place, both ships were (at least) 10 years old by the time of the war. Independencia as a wooden ship, and Huascar was a battleship modeled after the USS Monitor that was active during the American Civil war. on the Other hand, both Blanco and Cochrane were relatevely new, and both can be classified as Dreadnoughts. Independencia and Huascar were no match for them. Messhermit 00:33, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

• • One more thing, about how Independencia was lost, why don't you research a little bit about how Covadonga and Loa were sunk? I believe that those two examples clearly beat the one of Independencia. Messhermit 00:33, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

• A major factor during the Battle of Agnamos was the Chilean Navy's use of Palliser armour-piercing shells; these rounds gave it an edge that Huáscar did not have - shots from Huáscar would bounce off, while shots from Blanco Encalada would cut right through Huáscar. This was not a secret weapon: Admiral Grau repeatedly asked his chain of command for his own load of armour-piercing shells (which never arrived); the US was extremely interested in studying the effects of Palliser shells on Huáscar after the battle. (Heck, if Esmeralda had been equipped to use these at Iquique... an impossible what-if, but do not underestimate the true ironclad-killer here)

• Minor detail, it is claimed that Bolivia lost its (seagoing) navy early during the war as Antofagasta was captured - this seems credible as Antofagasta was the major Bolivian port and was taken by surprise. I seem to have read that they offered privateering licenses or something like that, but have lost track of the citation. TopQuark 13:12, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

modern rifles in chile??? ha!

This made me laugh: "Chile had superiority on land as well, having the advantage of modern artillery and better rifles." Chile still used old rifles from the colony and independence. Peru had bought new weapons for their soldiers and I think that Bolivia used old rifles (either way, Bolivia retired early from the war because of political problems). The advantage of Chile wasn't in its weapons it was on the soldiers who where better trained (and most of them had gained experience fighting against terrorists and indians). I doubt if Peru had training for most of their soldiers at all... Well I remember that when the war started peruvian armed forces had to deal with a great problem: most higher-ranked officers and instructors where chileans who returned to Chile. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.42.177.66 (talk • contribs) 10 Sept 2005

• • • I want to ask to add a note about Captain Miguel Grau. If there is something that's not being disputed is that he was a gentleman. And PLEASE remove Perú's history fact box from the article. It just doesn't belong to here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.42.177.66 (talk • contribs) 10 Sept 2005

• The Chilean Army had recently received put in service a version of the Belgian-made Comblain No.2 rifle. This was a breech-loading rifle (you crack it open, reload, close and fire) as opposed to a muzzle-loading rifle (turn the rifle, reload, compact, turn, fire). This enables the troops to fire at a higher rate, and from protected positions (crouching or lying down) - the effect is better fire and protection. These did have a shorter range though. Note that Peru also had these rifles available (although in smaller quantities) as well as the Chassepot breech-loading and some muzzle-loaders.

• None of these armies had standardized ammo, which could lead to logistic issues during battle (now, what if you get the wrong kind of cartridge?) - in logistical terms, the army with the smaller "rifle zoo" had an advantage. I am still unsure how much had Chile standardized on the Comblain, but seems to have been further along than the Allies' use of any single rifle.

• The Chilean Army also had greater quantities of Krupp field artillery, which was transportable and had better range than Allied field artillery.

TopQuark 13:12, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

The above supports the statement on "modern artillery and better rifles". This means, on one hand, that Chile had an objective advantage on land weaponry, regardless of troop quality (which is a different and often subjective matter); on the other, and this is quite telling, it indicates that Chile was better prepared before the war.

Cheers, TopQuark 12:29, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

I wonder how much of both camps' opinions are biased for political reasons? Very much I'm sure, by the fact that the historians above seem to be affiliated with the military. I'm sure there is a greater motive toward a bias on the side of the Peruvian historian as the Pacific war is a deep wound in that nation's national pride and military history. Remember that the Cenepa war was never really resolved because outside parties were never able to see that both nations disagreed about Peru and Ecuador's borders for different reasons and could not see eye to eye. I'm afraid this situation is exactly the same and demonstrates that History is being revised to fit one party over another because the liberal atmosphere of today's politics is pro-victim; and Peru's defeat in the Pacific war can be used to give them victim status and serve to vindicate them. You want an unbiased opinion my friend? Take the two accounts and average them out. Remember also the author has worked from biased information (since no other information exists). Messerschmitt - Disrespectful war? Is that what the men who died in that war amount to? Would you have a different opinion if your side had won? ---Anonymous —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.166.20.64 (talk • contribs) 15 Sept 2005

• I don't see any point in talking about the Cenepa
• Most of the info that is present on this article is not based on a biased opinion (or even my opinion). It's research made by myself (and other Peruvian and recently Chilean Wikipedist) to achieve a NOPV article.
• Peru's defeat in the War of the Pacific indeed was a serious wound in peruvian society, just as the lost of Patagonia is for Chilean society and the lost of Atacama is for Bolivians.
• Also, if you look around the Internet you will find internet webpages dedicated to glorify a just war made by fascist and pinochetist chileans that believe that they are right because they won the war.
• Chile, Peru and Bolivia were only pawns in the big Chess game that the British Empire had during the late XIX Century.
• There is no glory in a war. So let's skip the romanticism about that. Peru and Bolivia lost the war, but nothing would have change even if they have won. Bolivia would have been in the same political caos (ruled by the military) and Peru would have lost once again the opportunity to industrialise the nation.

At the end, dear Anonymous, my opinion would have been the same. Messhermit 01:57, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Anonymous, I would personally be a bit suspect of military-affiliated POV. Apparently each national bias tends to focus on the bravery of its own soldiers rather than on subtler points of warfare (probably due to this, I find more online Allied accounts on Chilean Comblain, Krupp and Palliser weaponry than Chilean accounts). While troop quality has an impact, it does not explain the outcome of a war by itself.

Anyway, POV seems to be allright on the talk page, as long as it does not spill over into the main article. I would agree with Messhermit that biased sources, if cooperating carefully, can craft an unbiased article.

For me, it works as follows: POV is written (i.e. "the advantage of Chile wasn't its weapons but its soldiers") and seems inaccurate. We need to verify: look references up and do some research. Aha! It turns out that there is documentary evidence in support of the "modern rifle" statement [1] [2] [3] [4], as well as a nice wiki article on breech-loading weapons. So the statement is verifiably inaccurate - Chile did have an advantage on matériel after all. Well, go back to the talk page and explain. If editing the main article, reference as well -the result is a better article.

I am sure you guys have already realized what a learning opportunity this is. We get to see differing views of the war, correct our own POV and maybe even contribute to someone else's understanding. In doing this, we get to research and learn a bit more as well.

We are, in other words, on a journey of discovery. Cheers, TopQuark 12:29, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

it's a fact that the bolivian side was equiped whit stone-shooters rifles...! the chilean side was equiped even whit a primitive machine gun. It's a fact and everyone who is seriously interested should know this. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 200.87.7.100 (talk • contribs) 17 April 2006.

History of Peru table, Peruvian POV

I'm very concerned about the fact that is article, as controversial as it is, has a "History of Peru" table which, at first sight, gives the reader an insight as if all the focus is on Peru. Being a war-related article, readers must obtain a completely non-POV sequence of events right from the beginning. I'm not the only one in favor of removing such table, as it is evident in this talk page. The war involved three nations - Peru, Chile, and Bolivia - yet we're not going to include history tables of all three nations, are we? As the current article stands, there are very contentious points and arguments which have yet to be resolved and sourced. Such fact makes the "History of Peru" table irrefutable right at the beginning; I suggest we create a more proper table which states the name of the conflict, date, place, and the strength and casualties of both sides.

• The table is there because the ´´War of the Pacific´´ is an important and integral part of the History of Peru. I see no POV in leaving it like that. Also, if Chile and Bolivia have similar timelines, theirs can be there too. Messhermit 00:47, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

• Lets see what others think about this, and from there create an independent and article-related table.

• If you have that opinion from the beggining, you wouldn'd have started all this rv war, right? Messhermit 16:58, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

• I did not start this "rv war", quite on the contrary: you did. Every war-related article has an independent table with information about that war, not the history of the country where it happened. The War of the Pacific was a very significant conflict where three of South America's most historical countries were involved, and this article places excessive focus in Peru as if Bolivia and Chile took no part. I am in no way trying to create a higher antagonism here, but simply letting others decide what is best for the entire article. I'm pretty sure others will state their opinions as to what is right and make the article completely impartial and free of POVs.

• Unfortunately, you are wrong in the aspect about the rv war: the fact that you took your time to erase things that you considerated as POV withouth a proper explanation can be considerated as POV pushing. Also, as you may see on this talk page, the issue was discused but no action was taken against that template because of the simple fact that, as an integral part of Peruvian History, it belongs here. Also, Chilean Wikipedist are welcome to discuss the issues of the article IN THE TALK PAGE, and not starting and absurd rv war. If you could create a USER name, insted of using an IP number, we can discuss things in an appropiated an civilised way. Messhermit 20:03, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

• Other people who read and wrote this article will see what is right and create a non-POV, war-related table for this article. While I will register soon, I don't have to create a username if I don't want to, since Wikipedia allows anyone to edit as long as it is constructive editing and non-vandalizing material thats added to any articles. (There are tons of great articles created and edited by IP users). Yet I'm happy to have raised this issue and hope the rest of the editors of this article will take their stances and decide on its fate. And I believe I am being "civilized" enough since I am not publicly offending or cursing anyone on this talk page. By the way, I'm not a Chilean Wikipedist, but a student of Latin American studies who saw this article and called my attention right off. I can see why you think I'm Chilean since I'm proposing something that should be fair and convey a clear, non-POV message to English-speaking readers of a Latin American historical war. That is why I propose a war of the pacific related table with specific information such as date, place, and the strength and casualties of both sides.

I think it would make perfect sense to add similar boxes for the histories of Chile and Bolivia; I think it would make perfect sense to add (before any of them) the usual box to describe a war. I don't think it particularly makes sense to remove the box about the history of Peru. -- Jmabel | Talk 04:24, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

I agree with you Jmabel. That's pat of what I have been saying. Messhermit 04:34, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

I do agree that the war is an important, integral part of all three countries' histories; I now think that the current table contents about History of Peru is not POV as it stands, but that its presence does frequently lead to claims of POV. I do however have a number of concerns about having country-specific tables, and do not agree that having all three enhances the article - I will elaborate later on these concerns as soon as I have the time.

In short, I believe that having all three tables (Bolivia, Chile, Peru) would detract from the article - balance will not lead to readability; having a single table may be perceived as POV by some readers. In my opinion we should aim not to remove, but to replace the table with a single war-related table as opposed to three country-related ones.

Cheers! TopQuark 10:51, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

War with Mapuche connection?

Hi, here's another perspective on this issue - I've often heard that the war of the pacific was also the time when the war with the Mapuches in the south came to an end with a lot of bloodshed, and, I think - with the chilean soldiers returning from the war. Is this true, or how are these events connected? -and should this connection be included in this page, or perhaps in the Mapuche page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.222.34.132 (talk • contribs) 7 November 2005

Mmmm... I have heard about that, but I don't see the connection with the War of the Pacific. Maybe that Idea could be explained in the Chilean Civil War that came after? Messhermit 22:34, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Most definitely, the Chilean Civil War seems to have been an issue sparked within the Chilean ruling class (President and Army vs. Congress and Navy); if ethnic Mapuche did fight, it was not likely for a Mapuche cause; hence the Mapuche war was probably unrelated to the Civil War.

Now regarding the War of the Pacific, my guess (read: I have no evidence, no citation) is that the only connection is that a large number of returning, veteran troops in 1883-1884 would have had an impact in bringing the conflict to an end. If this can be verified somewhere, it probably deserves a passing mention (no longer than a couple of lines, just like the Chaco War) as one of the consequences to the War of the Pacific. I will look up some material on this, see what I can come up with.

I would suggest that further detail on Chile vs. Mapuche war, beyond a few lines, is better placed at the Mapuche page or a "Mapuche war" page. Cheers, TopQuark 09:34, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Admiral Bergasse Dupetit-Thouars

Kudos to the latest contributors, I personally like the direction this article is moving in. As noted by Messhermit, much work remains to be done.

Now to business: there may be some confusion (which I share ;-) in regard to the name of the French Admiral in charge of the neutral fleet at Callao.

• Some french sources name him as Abel-Nicolas Bergasse-Dupetit-Thouars [5]Googling for this will further yield Abel Nicolas Georges Henri Bergasse Dupetit-Thouars

• Google will yield results with Dupetit-Thouars, Du Petit-Thouars, Du Petit Thouars, du Petit Thouars and Petit Thouars.

• The Dupetit-Thouars name has, apparently, some extensive maritime tradition. Some examples are Aristide Aubert Dupetit-Thouars, Abel Aubert Dupetit-Thouars; and the cruiser Dupetit-Thouars of the French navy [6].

• At last one of the sources indicates that a childless Abel Aubert Dupetit-Thouars adopted Abel Nicolas Bergasse; the latter would have taken the family name.

• There is an avenue in Lima named Du Petit Thouars after him. This is possibly a correct Spanish form of the name.

Based on this, I have taken the liberty to change the reference to what seems to be the closest to the original French form of the name. Please feel free to add, correct of discuss if I'm missing something. Cheers, TopQuark 11:50, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

El nombre real del almirante francés fue: Abel Nicolas Bergasse du Petit Thouars, como tal se encuentra en Wikipedia en español. Un abrazo. Arístides Herrera Cuntti

Next steps, and breaking up the article

The recent additions provide quite a bit of additional information on the war. We have a fuller list of battles and leaders, some interesting info on the fall of Lima, the submarine reference, a possible reference to the Mapuche war, and so on.

I agree with Messhermit, there is so much more to be done. I would like to share what is on my mind as per the future direction of the article:

• Pictures. Yes, we seem to need some additional thumbnails along the article. The Naval Campaign probably needs pics of Grau and Williams (both fleet commanders) or Grau and Prat (both heroes)
• Main picture.
• The list of battles with a brief description of each (but avoid going into too much detail) is almost complete; Tacna needs to be added.
• A mention should be made of government changes (Pierola, Campero), the diplomatic corps intervention, the Lynch expedition. Not battles exactly but important events.
• Spinning off articles dedicated to specific battles. The next obvious choice would be the Battle of Arica, due to significance and the level of detail available in the article. We already have articles for Iquique and Angamos, lets do the same for Arica.
• Comparison of forces
• Quotes
• A long-owed short section on Impact on the civilian population, under characteristics of the war

Unfortunately, and this brings me to a major sticking point, we seem to be running out of space. Adding to the article would be at the expense of two things: a) technical readability; b) subjective readability (we do not want to scare readers off). In this regard, Wikipedia recommends a limit of 32K per article.

This article needs to be shorter; at the same time, all of the material in there is already a valuable contribution to the subject. In order to keep adding, and to keep the material, I'll suggest that we need to start additional related articles. Some of these would be the result of breaking off and moving some of the existing sections:

1. Technology of the War of the Pacific. This has the most potential for growth: from the torpedo boats used by Peru, to the landing craft used by Chile, the remote controlled mines, boats laden with explosives. The breech-loading vs. muzzle-loading issue applied not only to rifles, but to the ironclads as well; the use and study of Palliser shells is a story unto itself. I could go on. The point is, each one of these has a story behind to be told.

2. Origins of the War of the Pacific. This section has been pretty quiet of late, but is long already. If we need to make the main article shorter, this would be my second candidate for spinoff.

3. Comparison of forces of the War of the Pacific. I intended to start writing a section on this; I now believe that this material should not go into a section but to an article by itself.

4. Quotes from the War of the Pacific. This subject has been barely touched, I now believe we should avoid doing so within the main article. There is a wealth of material ranging from Avaroa's "Que se rinda su abuela, carajo!", Bolognesi's "Tengo deberes sagrados que cumplir ..." and Prat's "Muchachos, la contienda es desigual ...". Grau's mail exchange with Prat's widow would be included here.

These kind of spin-off articles has been done for other, similar articles (i.e. American Civil War). It only indicates that there is a large quantity of quality material. If we seem to be approaching an unmanageable limit once again, we can revisit the article and say, spin off both campaigns into articles and replace with summaries on the main article while we develop the subject to its fullest on the spinoff articles.

I will be grateful for your comments on this proposal. In a few days, if everything is OK, I would expect to start off with the technology section. Cheers! TopQuark 20:36, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

Don't be afraid to have it temporarily too long, then break it up later. It's probably simpler to do the major work all in one place. -- Jmabel | Talk 07:23, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Thank you, and thanks Messhermit for your comments on my userpage. So, with one exception, I'll put the big knife away. We will grow the article and revisit breaking it up in the future, if necessary.

The one exception: I am still inclined to move the submarine story to its own, detailed article. Good story, a lot of material, possibly more detail than any other single section; I think it deserves its own place.

In any case, additional related articles are coming up! Cheers, TopQuark 21:33, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Ah, just noticed something funny. Messhermit asks Why did IP user remove the references? Well, the version prior to IP user's edit is 33K long; IP user's version is exactly 32K long; the rv puts its back at 33K.

It is possible that IP user may have wanted to contribute, but actually had his old browser eat up part the article because of the 32K limit. TopQuark 21:55, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

I couldn't disagree more that the article needs to be broken up. Most encyclopedia articles are more than 32 kb long. For example, the article "China" on Encyclopaedia Britannica Online is 1.3 MB long. Most people who want to learn about the Battle of Tacna will not type in Battle of Tacna in the search box. Instead, they will type War of the Pacific. The strength of an Encyclopedia is that it contains information all in one place. Even the World Book Online Reference Center article "United States" is 405 kb long. (World Book is an encyclopedia designed for people of all ages.) I find your insistance on cutting up the article especially troubling given that it's only 33 kb long right now. Primetime 07:12, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

POV or NPOV?

I think you should include a very important fact: 80% of the people living in the former bolivian territory was CHILEAN, however authorities were bolivan. Therefore, the Chilean government had the responsability of defending its people whose rights were not respecet by these bolivian authorities. Also, I see no point on pointing out "what could have happened if" Peru had done this or that, Chile won the war, and the territories in dispute have been Chilean for more than a century and will continue to be. Viva Chile!!!

Francisco

Another sad example of ultra-nationalism. Trying to justify the war with such a lame argument show us that people that praise this war are still out there, trying to impose their POV in Wiki. Messhermit 16:58, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Indeed we should try to work to not allow POV "contributions" in sensitive articles like wars, especially from participants of countries, which are native of one of the parties. Francisco is obiously chilean and not hiding it, but as I could see in the last revert of Messhermit, you are deleting or modifing the article in a similar way from the peruvian POV, but just on a more subtile kind of way, by omiting information, which might not show the clear tendence of agressor-vicitm in this article.

The points are:

-In 1878 the Bolivian government of President Hilarión Daza, decreed a backdated 1874 tax increase on Chilean companies

why do you delete such a detail, which did have a very big impact on the situation? The fact, that the tax was backdated to 1874 probably made it impossible to the chilean companies, to pay the tax. So one could interprete (or not, thats the reader to decide, he should finally judge), that the higher aim of the bolivian president was that he was "forced" to confiscate the chilean mining companies, due that they were not able to pay. He would have finally solved the issue to his favour, and getting rid of the competitors from the south. At least, it was a fact that this tax was backdated and I do not see any reason to omit this information.

Chilean companies refused to pay any type of taxes, no matter what condition. Their government defended that position. Messhermit 19:25, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, that was the position of the companies and the chilean government, due they relied to the agreement of the 1866 and 1874 treaties between Bolvia and Chile, where it was stated, that no taxes at all should be raised for a period of 25 years, no matter to what reason. Bolivia violated this in 1878 and then not only asked for a tax begining 1878, but even backdated this tax to 1874, which obviously even brought more angriness into the situation. The violation of the treaty prior to escalation of war should not be omited. --CapHoorn 16:05, 11 January 2006 (CET)

-Argentina was invited to join the Alliance. Since it had a territorial dispute with Chile regarding the region of Patagonia, and was also wary of Chilean expansion/position

Some time ago I have tried to investigate the situaton of the Patagonia, and the questions would be here: is it adaquate to use the word Expansion or was it rather a poisition they tried to defend. It's is rather unclear, who really had the rights over this territory. The Argentinan side did rely on the spanish rule set during the colonies, that the andes was the natural border between Argentina and Chile, so that they were own the rights for western Patagonia. The Chilean side relies several other spanish maps and spanish decretes by the crown, where Patagonia was seen as chilean territory. They also claim, that they were the first to settle, while argentinans started the campaign to the south in late 1860's. So far I investigated, i come to the conclusion that none of the parties was right, as this territory was not ocuppied by the spainards, and that it was a place only inhabited by several indian tribes like tehulches, mapuches and other ones. Due to that, we cannot talk about a chilean expansions towards Argentina, as it was a disputed territory.

Actually, before the War with Peru and Bolivia, Chile and Argentina were really close to war for Patagonia. In these sence, with the Chilean Government of that time having so many conflicts with it's border ( Peru, Bolivia, and Argentina ), the word expasion is fairly accurate. Also, the fact that still some Hardcore Chilean nationalist see the lost of Patagonia as a burden contributes to this fact. Messhermit 19:37, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

I do not agree with you here, "conflict" is not equal to "expansionism". First means only confrontation about an issue, this implies 2 point of views. "Expansionism" is rather one sided and is always easily detectable. As I have detailed before, the patagonia was rather a disputed territory, due that it was rather a uninhabited territory, borders were not clearly defined between the 2 new independent states yet. Also Argentina claimed parts of the western Patagonia. There is no agressor-victim situation in this specific conflict. Therefore expansionism is definitely the wrong word here.--CapHoorn 16:20, 11 January 2006 (CET)

-With little effective Peruvian central government remaining, Chile pursued a brutal/ambitious campaign throughout Peru, especially on the coast and the central Sierra, penetrating as far north as Cajamarca

Brutal or ambitious, the word to define the chilean campaign in Peru. I think no one exactly matches it, as both are kind of extremes and POV, but I think that ambitious is lesser POV, as it does not put any party in a kind of guilt position. Again, It must be cleared, that this is an historic page, we should reflect only facts and no individual value interpretations. The reader himself should be able to decide if there is a white/black good/evil situation, and he will.

Unfortunatelly, The Occupation of Peru is itself crowded with this type of atrocities. The Repase of fallen Peruvian and Bolivian soldiers in the battlefield, the destruction of Chorrillos, the looting of the Peruvian National Library, and the actions of Chilean Gral. Patricio Linch in the northern coast of Peru are some proof of the brutality of the Chilean Army (condemned by several foreign ambassadors), and the fact that the Chilean Army was facing a Guerrilla campaing instead of a organized army inside the country is also proof that the invadors were not soft at any rate. Messhermit 19:25, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

I didn't expect it to be a "soft" war as you named it, as far as I know, it was the war with the 2nd most casualties on the continent, after the Chaco war. Wars are never "soft". I have searched for this information you named and found something... especially about Chorillos where the chileans landed. But I think this was quite "normal" for these kind of wars in that times, especially when guerillas are involded. You name the guerilla kind of war, which did take place. Armies which occupy other territories and are attacked by guerillas mostly tend to react harder, as they claim this to be out of the war rules, especially when there is no oficial government anymore, the guerillas officially could be defined as bandits and criminals according to international war law. In this case we should maybe leave "brutal", or even replace it by "hard-fought", last one would relate to the hard resistance of the guerillas. But then we also would have to delete the sentence "With little effective Peruvian central government remaining", as there wasn't any anymore...--CapHoorn 16:40, 11 January 2006 (CET)

- The remnants of the Peruvian Army led by Cáceres defeated Chilean Army units on several occasions, but after the loss in the Battle of Huamachuco

again omition of valuable facts, messhermit. Why do you delete the outcome of this last battle? Don't see the point...

My rv was general. Also, another important battle is omited, the one that prevented Cajamarca from falling to Chilean Control: Battle of San Pablo. It was due to this battle that peruvian Gral Miguel Iglesias was able to negotiate for Peace with the Chileans . The defeat of Caceres was more like a moral defeat rather than a tactical one. Messhermit 19:25, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

my first suggestion would then be: add the battle of San Pablo, if you think it was important. But don't delete the outcome of these battles. My opinion is, that San Pablo was rather less important. First, beacause it was a complete year before the last battle of Caceres, and secondly, it was a minor battle: 420 Peruvians faced and defeated 600 Chileans in the north of the country in July 1882. And last but not least, Caceres was without any doubt the head of resistance. The last battle from Caceres was in July 1883, where he sent the complete force left of 1500 men against 2000 chileans. It was the last battle before the peace treaty, so the conclusion is exactly the opposite: The battle of San Pablo was a moral victory, the battle of Huamachuco is the final and decesive battle, therefore very tactical.--CapHoorn 16:56, 11 January 2006 (CET)

I am sure that some of the points I adressed might be reviewable, as I am not the owner of truth, like nobody is. But some of the information I added shouldn't be missing, like the backdating of tax and outcome of a specific battle. Cheers! --CapHoorn 14:20, 06 January 2006 (CET)

As you may have seen, I attempted to explain the reasons for my rv. As a peruvian, I try to be as neutral as posible, and rest assure that I will use nationalism as a tool (like those Viva (Country)!) to support my claims on this page. Messhermit 19:37, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

That's fine, I see and hope that you are open to additional or contrary , but also agreeing perspectives. I have added my comments in the upper text, let me know what you think about it. Cheers. --CapHoorn 16:02, 1 January 2006 (CET)

Victim?

War was declared to Peru for its attemp to mediate in the Chilean-Bolivian conflict. Also, I will put a quotation from the Spanish Wikipedia that clearly show the aggresiveness of the Chilean Government:

Benjamín Vicuña Mackenna, Chilean writer and Senator, declared that the chilean "people" were prepared and willing to go to war:

El pueblo quería la guerra con el Perú porque la veía, porque la palpaba, porque estaba consumada, porque la ocupación de Antofagasta era un hecho positivo de agresión armada. / The people desired war with Peru because they saw it comming, because it was a fact, and because the occupation of Antofagasta (the fact that Bolivia was in control of the territory) must be considerated an armed agression

Messhermit 19:37, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

No, definitely Peru was not a victim, this might be you POV perspective, probably you have been tought this version (in school?). Fact is that Peru was the mighter country in the 19th century, Peru was the economic and cultural centre of the spanish empire in Southamerica. Mostly they despectively judged their neighbours of being poor and miserable, in a very arrogant way. Peru pretended to fool the chilean Goverment, playing the role of the independent mediator between Bolivia and Chile, but due to the secret war alliance they had with Bolivia against Chile, they were trying to help Bolivia and trying to prepare for war. Chile got to know about this alliance, and because Chile was declared war by Bolivia previously, Peru being the offical ally of Bolivia, was declared war too. Not Chile decided Peru to be the enemy, but peruvians themselves when they signed the secret war alliance against Chile, and not to forget, the alliance to declare war to Chile first (by Bolivia).

I also have evidence of this arrogant, false and perfidious behaviour of peruvian position. You are quoting the opinion of 1 individual person to let this look like Victim-Agressor case, I quote you the opinion of the peruvian masses, distributed by the main newsletter of your country in that time:

"La Patria, Lima 12 de enero de 1880.

Chile, Aquel pueblo raquítico, pobre, arrojado al extremo del mundo, tenía y tiene vida prestada; su preponderancia, como granero es efímera y poco duradera; su preponderancia marítima comercial se debe al paso del estrecho y del Cabo, y vacila a los anuncios de la apertura del canal de Panamá, su preponderancia minera cae sin esperanza día a día y su agricultura no se acrecienta porque ha dado cuanto dar puede aquella tierra angosta y estropical. Chile esta predestinado a la oscuridad, a la mediania; su estrella ha llegado a su mayor culminación y se opaca por la fuerza misma de las cosas, porque el progreso de las naciones sus vecinas y el progreso general de América es su muerte!!!!"

Sorry, this is the original news in spanish, I will translate this to english later on.

I have rarely read anything more arrogant and rabidly envious in my life than this news, except the hate speeches of Hitler and Fundamentalists... So if you want to proceed moving this article into a Victim-Agressor or Good-Bad construction, be sure that people will not tolarate it. Wikipedia is not a propaganda site. Thanks for your understanding. RapaNui 15:27, 17 January 2006 (CET)

Unrealistic and terrible example of ultra-nationalist chilean revisionism. Are you trying to sell the idea that Chile was forced to war against Bolivia? Mmm... I wonder how any civilized country would react if another one invades part of it's territory. Chile invaded Antofagasta, wich was an integral part of Bolivia. Peru was dragged into the conflict because of the Alliance that was made in order to respond against this type of situation.

Also, your pathetic attemp to use that newspaper (without sources, btw) to claim that the peruvian people were willing to go in war, it's simple ludicrous. you can check in the spanish Wikipedia and realice that the quote made by that Chilean Senator, actually exist.

And yes, Wikipedia is not a propaganda site, rest assure that I will rv your nationalistic-baseless claims. Your Hate speeches will not be tolerated. Messhermit 20:01, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Don't be childish Messhermit, you yourself brought up this "Peru = Victim" issue, and I have shown the other side, added the reasons and the real origins for the issue, which are being permanenty hidden by Peruvian POV defenders, so whats your problem? Nobody is allowed to critizize or even doubt this "thesis" which only blames one party(chile) to be the guilty without any profound analisis, because you feel hurted in your nationalistic honour? Sorry I did, and gosh... was it easy to let this card house fall appart! You call others ultra nationalistic, but then publish demagogic propaganda histories and don't allow anybody to even think of doubting the construct...

Also I see a strong problem of yours with comprehension. How many uncountable times has it been proved, that Antofagasta was not sovereign territory of Bolivia to that time, as the cease of this territory from Chile to Bolivia was bounded to STRICT regulatory rules to be hold by both parties in the frontier treaty of 1874, which Bolivia did not fulfill and misrespected on purpose in a very aggressive way ? I suggest you to read this same history article "war of the pacific"! Peru accepted this violation of international law and contract and even supported it, so its not possible to put Peru in the Victim role. RapaNui 01:56, 18 January 2006 (CET)

Keep dreaming that Antofagasta was part of Chile before the War of the Pacific. That only show us the kind of education that unfortunately the right-wing gobernment of Pinochet has teach to the chilean society. Antofagasta was part of Bolivia. And, just wondering, if only Antofagasta was in dispute... why Tarapaca, Tacna and Arica were annexed? Don't you think that there was already a political agenda por those territories? Find the answer to that question, and come back to talk in a civilized way. Messhermit 01:50, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

It's definitely not a dream, Antofagasta was a city founded by Chileans, try to search who founded it, and you will face Jose Santos Ossa, a chilean chango. If Antofagasta was supposedly not in dispute, how do you explain that Bolivians made more than one international treaty with chileans, which allowed "supposed" chilean intromission in souverign internal national affairs like tax handling, for example?!? This would have been something unbearable if it would have been like you described your point of view. Why would they have signed this, when this action meant nothing else than admitting the unclear/uncertain definition of the territory ?!? Because if it was really theirs, all these territory treaties wouldn't have been necessary! I don't expect you to answer this point, probably this question has too much depth in theme, doubt you can handle this, same like you didn't face any of the points I listed you. Concerning your point of Tarpaca, yes... it was peruvian and there is no doubt about that, no problem with saying that, because its the truth. Tarpaca was annexed to Chile as a war reperation. I don't think that before the war, there was such kind of agenda, this is pure supposition from your side, unless you have any kind of prove??? (I doubt it) Last but not least, don't talk to me about education, there is a german phrase I like, traduced it would be: You should throw stones at somebody, while you're sitting in a glasshouse. You are critizizing chilean educaction, which by the way has one of the highest reputation in Latinamerica, while Peru is known for its high illiteracy with a rate of I think even over 10 %? If education is so excellent in Peru, how do you explain that candidates like Humala Ollanta are so popular (such a bad educated charlatan wouldn't even become mayor of the smallest mountain village in Chile) in your country and probably will become president, without having any government program, but wide spread demagogic hate speeches against the southern neighbour Chile? That explains it all! Furthermore I don't see to continue arguing with you, as this is quite useless, I guess. RapaNui 00:26, 24 January 2006 (CET)

To settle this, once and for all:

• Antofagasta WAS NOT part of Chile before the War. Go ahead and keep thinking in that way, I'm not the one that is dreaming. And regarding the treaties, as any civilized country, a settle is prefered rather than full scale war. I wonder, if the disputes only involved Bolivia and the some private enterprises, why then, the chilean government of that time decided to become involved?
• Curious indeed that Tarapaca was annexed because of Saltpeter. I wonder if, just as Antofagasta, there was a hidden agenda of the Chilean government of that time to annex the area. You just don't annex territories because you feel like it. Ah! and history never forgets that Arica and Tacna were Chilenized, wich technically means that Arica was gived to Chile because it was colonized.
• You are a perfect example that even chilean education (wich you claim to be one of the best) produce lumpen. Go ahead and critizise Peruvian Education, since it's a perfect way to evade discussin about the topic.
• Regarding Ollanta, does Lavin and Piñera make you feel proud of being chilean, the heirs of the Pinochetista legacy? Ollanta is nothing more that one of the actors of the peruvian elections, and (honestly speaking) don't think that it has chances to win.

When you read a real and serious history book, feel welcome to come back. Messhermit 00:17, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

"No, definitely Peru was not a victim, this might be you POV perspective, probably you have been tought this version (in school?)". Hey hey, it is well known in human history that Peru was attacked by Chile.

"Fact is that Peru was the mighter country in the 19th century, Peru was the economic and cultural centre of the spanish empire in Southamerica. Mostly they despectively judged their neighbours of being poor and miserable, in a very arrogant way.". Peru has economic power because of the guano, in that time, my country was divided in "people from Lima" and "people form the andes".

"Peru pretended to fool the chilean Goverment, playing the role of the independent mediator between Bolivia and Chile, but due to the secret war alliance they had with Bolivia against Chile". Excuse me??? secret alliance against Chile?? For god sake, that is complety false!. Peru and Bolivia suscribed a mutual defense treaty (same all southamericans states signed with the USA during Worl War II).

"they were trying to help Bolivia and trying to prepare for war. Chile got to know about this alliance, and because Chile was declared war by Bolivia previously, Peru being the offical ally of Bolivia, was declared war too". Hahahaha, lier lier lier...Chile declared the war (don't you read history books?) and Peru helped Bolivia.

" Not Chile decided Peru to be the enemy, but peruvians themselves when they signed the secret war alliance against Chile, and not to forget, the alliance to declare war to Chile first (by Bolivia)". Please, Peru has been always a peaceful country.

Also you should know that Peru helped his ally Bolivia. Opss! i remember now that Chile has no allies!!!!, that country is so arrogant, that has no friends in South America (only Ecuador is his "ally").

Please, in the article in spanish about this war, it is clearly said that Antofagasta was part of Bolivia. I can't just understand that you're making your own conclusions when oficially, this article was written by peruvians, chileans and bolivians!!!. Come on!, think!. Gonzalo 03:28, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Long time not visited here and he see all going mad. To messhermit: the treaties are always better than wars, there is no doubt in it. But they are useless, if they are not being respected and then violated, like in this war. Bolivia didn't fulfill the treaty, which was a treaty on NATIONAL basis, not between business entities, I repeat... it was a treaty beween the Chilean and the Bolivian Government, signed by both presidents, and not like you are trying to suggest, on business or company level. You both are talking like Bolivia and Peru were saints, but they knowingly provoked the war, and lets be rational, of COURSE Peru and Bolivia also had economic interest in this, especially Peru who was losing pace due to the situation where guano got worthless, so don't lets be hypocrates... Tarpaca by the way wasn't just suddenly annexed from day to night... it was done as a consecuence of the ongoing war which was bweing lost by the alliance, a reperation, that was a use in that times... so what?

Lavin and Piñera, eventhough they are not of my political taste, are far from being stupid war demamgogues like Ollanta is, nowerdays puppet of Chavez. Piñera is a man that only treated national themes during his campaign, he never mentioned or used revanchism to neighbour countries in his programs, like Ollanta or even the right wing candidate Lourdes in Peru does recently. Lavin also did not focus on Peru, Bolivia neither any hate speach against anything which was not chilean, Ollanta did focus on that. The comments and insults you further made on my contributions I will not comment, they lack of any kind of rational arguementation and show kind of despair. The other kid called gonzalo, before you even start to give "lessons" about war historic facts, just verify that Bolivia was the first one to declare war on march the 1st. Chile did answer this the 5th of April. Peru a Peaceful country??? that says it all...--RapaNui 23:05, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Once again, the guys that runs www.soberaniachile.com believe that they have the truth in their hands. Fortunately, Wikipedia does not accepts warmongers like you. Messhermit 02:41, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't know this page, even tried to open that... but it does not exist. When somebody lacks of arguementation, he starts with "childish games". I understand you. --RapaNui 11:23, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, and that's why you keep writing non-sences here. Messhermit 17:08, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

How sad to find people who think the way RapaNui does (by the way, the isle of Rapa Nui is another example of Chilean expansionism -including the killing of the isle's natives, and you proudly choose that nickname . Why don't you tell the history of Rapa Nui, how the British and Chilean killed the people there, instead of bothering serious people who is trying to write an article about a war that made so many people unhappy? -sad, really). Ollanta Humala an example of Peruvian education? God, not! you are obviously -and totally- confused and misinformed because of your Chilean ultra-nationalism or your ignorance. Ollanta Humala -and not Humala Ollanta as you *again wrongly* say- was a student of the French-Peruvian school, a rather exclusive and prestigious private school. And he went to continue his higher education to France. And the guy had no options of being a Peruvian president, as you can now see. But what can we expect from a person like RapaNui, who appears in public sites like Wikipedia to express hatred and frustration, to try to confuse people with statements regarding education and politics of a country which s/he doesn't know and to talk about facts that s/he doesn't even know and that above all do not belong into the points of discussions of this page? S/He talks about Ollanta Humala, a minor Peruvian politician who doesn't even have 5% of support now (as of Feb 2007), having Pinochet in Chile, who killed so many of his *OWN* people. Is that what we are discussing here? I think not. Sheesshh... and s/he claims to be neutral. I am reading this with my neighbors -they're a Chilean couple with three beautiful and intelligent girls who are now wondering why people like you behave like you- here and we'd like you to know that we feel sorry for you. You are completely confused. Like "Condorito" would say: requeteplop! I encourage Chileans, Peruvians, Bolivians and everyone else to continue with the objective of writing a good unbiased article, do not let persons like RapaNui bother you.

little apart

I don't mean to be rude at all, but I'd like to make a little apart about this article. I'm translating it to portuguese, and noticed that it tends to peruvian side. I haven't read all your threads, but it clearly makes Peru and Bolivia the big victims of this war. Just an opinion from a neutral brazilian

http://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usu%C3%A1rio:Simoes 18:00, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

The article itself is being modify by several wikipedist (Peruvians, Bolivians and Chileans), and most of the information is being selected for being NPOV. Messhermit 20:02, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Hi Brazilian wikipedist, you are quite right... due to mayor part of Peruvian Wikipedist dealing this page, this article strongly tends to Peruvian POV. Any modification somebody does, not being the Peruvian and Bolivian POV, gets reverted in shortest time, mostly just 1 or 2 hours later, and without real arguementation. Unfortunately very few of my (chilean) countrymen enter this page, as in Chile, this past war is not that present in today's society, like in Peru, Because on Chile, people rather focus on improving the present and future of the country. Per/Bol remind the war almost every day and keep the revanchism alive, examples are numerous, just verify the sea territory claim launched by Peru end of last year, the hate speaches of their current President candidate Humala Ollanta, etc...sometimes it looks really hopeless.--RapaNui 11:39, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Ignorance is bold. That's all that I can say in responce of this clear and ignorant attack. Messhermit 04:21, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Another evidence... one gets attacked and insulted by this Peruvian Wikipedist each time, by only explaining that contributions are being reverted n shoertest time, without real argumentation.--RapaNui 01:47, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes. And you are as Saint as Pinochet. Messhermit 01:51, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

this is why i say wiskipedia is a bunch of childlish trolls

Argentina

an anon changed the text about involvement of Argentina: [7] can this be verified? Tobias Conradi (Talk) 16:25, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

I think that Argentina was invited to the Alliance with Peru and Bolivia (due to the fact that Chile was also having a territorial dispute with them), but didn't accept it. The rest is POV. Messhermit 01:35, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Peru, Bolivia and Chile before the 1879 War

The maps included on the main article do not represent a neutral point of view.
See Chilean Point of View Jespinos 22:49, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

It has been proved that Bolivia did have a coastline before the war. Also, that map already states that Arica and Tarapaca are in chilean control. As far as I know those two things are totally biased and historical lies. What are you talking about? Messhermit 02:13, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

If you look well, you notice that the Loa river is indicated as historical border between Perú and Chile. Please stop editing the main article. Jespinos 04:28, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Please provide information that support your claim (and by information I mean historical documents and not some ultranationalistic claim from soberianiachile.com). Wikipedia is not a place to state a "Peruvian" or "Bolivian" or "Chilean" POV. Messhermit 14:02, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

The map should show disputed territories as disputed. - Jmabel | Talk 01:07, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

The dispute here is due to the fact that there are still some people that "believe" that Bolivia did not have a coastline even before this war. That has been already refuted by historians and those comments are now regarded as mere chilean irredentism. Messhermit 04:03, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

The 1874 Treaty established the border between Bolivia and Chile at 24th parallel of south latitude, which is not shown on the maps. If Bolivia had sea in compliance with international laws, it was during the period of validity of the treaties of 1866 and 1874. The last of which was violated by Bolivia. Jespinos 17:37, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

The argument that you mention was already debated here and in Wikipedia/ES. The result: there is no single paragraph in that treaty that stated Antofagasta as a chilean province before the signature of that treaty. It also fails to prove that in case the treaty was violated, Antofagasta was going back to Chile. Thus, there is no reason to believe that Bolivia did not have a coastline before the war. Messhermit 20:06, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

What debate?, you try to impose your POV. Jespinos 21:32, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

It's not my POV. Please go an check the article on Wikipedia/ES and some other articles that involve Bolivia and Chile here in Wikipedia EN. Messhermit 23:53, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your info. In the same way that it was done in Wikipedia/ES, I will remove the maps. Jespinos 16:59, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

The maps are not in Wikipedia/ES because they only use pictures from Wikipedia Commons. They have nothing to do with the accuracy of the map. So far, the only thing that you are doing is figthing with Ip's regarding the "POV" tag. You have not presented a single piece of evidence of why do you dispute the neutrality, and that definetely does not help the article. Messhermit 17:35, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

This would all be clarified (and considerably de-POV'd) if someone would be overt about the provenance of the map at the start of the article. Messhermit, you uploaded it: where does it come from?

Why is this a concern? Because:

• Given controversy over the status of the territory, it is very important to understand who drew the map at what date. Ideally, I'd want pre-1879 maps, and if there are conflicting ones, I'd want to accurately represent the gamut.
• On a rights basis, it is very important to sort out whether the map is in the public domain and, if it is not, who holds copyright. Without that, it seems to me that the presence of the map on Wikipedia is liable to be a violation of policy (for straight out fair-use policy reasons). If the map is here on a fair use rather than a PD basis, we need to say who holds copyright. - Jmabel | Talk 18:22, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Jmabel, I appreciate your efforts to mediate in this unfortunate dispute:

• The issue here is that Jespinos "believes" that Bolivia did not have a coast before 1879. He states that a treaty in 1874 specifies that.
• The treaty, as far as I know, did not include any clause stating that if Bolivia violates the treaty, Atacama goes back to chilean control. It did state, however, that Bolivia could not raise taxes on several chilean-owned enterprises.
• Regarding the maps, this one has already being present in the article for a long time, and there has never being any problem with it (even Orphanbot recognizes that, I think so). The other map, as you can read, was made by another user for another wikipedia, and that map does not have anything inaccurate on it. Messhermit 21:30, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

At start of this thread, I posted a link to a map indicating Chilean Point of View. I do not said that it was my POV or a NPOV. With respect to the Treaty of 1874, I was not understood. I recognize that my english level is low, but even so I think that said the contrary. Jespinos 01:57, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't really care that OrphanBot isn't complaining: I look at the image page, and I can't tell who made the map, which on a controversial subject is inappropriate.

This PDF is linked from the U.S. Library of Congress Studies on both on Peru and Chile; I would think it would constitute a neutral view of the matter, and it is public domain. As I'm sure you know, a PDF is a bit of a pain; I'll transform it to another format and make it available. - Jmabel | Talk 21:44, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

LOC map of territories involved in the War of the Pacific

Now available on commons as a PNG: Image:War of the Pacific LOC map.png. Someone might also want to do a JPG.

Chilean map

Also, when uploading that, I came across Image:Territorio ocupado en Tarapacá por el ejército chileno (1879).jpg. This appears to be a Chilean map, dated at the start of the conflict. - Jmabel | Talk 22:15, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

There are some imprecisions and omissions in the map, but in general, I accept it. In special, had been interesting some mention of the Treaty of 1866, indicating territories awarded to Bolivia by Chile.

On the maps appearing in the main article, there is a huge gap between the parallel 24° south latitude and the parallel 26° south latitude, which is not shown as chilean territory. I think that it cannot be considered accurate. Jespinos 19:01, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

I have my doubts regarding the accuracy of the American map that you find Jmabel, since it is fairly common to find (In U.S History or World History books) maps that are not accurate at all. To even think that Bolivia did not have access to the sea before the war is unbelievable. Messhermit 23:25, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure what (if anything) the last sentence of your latest comment has to do with the rest of it: the lower two shaded areas on the map are captioned, respectively, "Awarded to Chile by Bolivia, 1883" and "Awarded to Chile by Bolivia, 1874". Obviously, if Bolivia awarded the land to Chile, it was previously part of Bolivia. So this map clearly says that Bolivia did have access to the sea before the war.

What, precisely, are your doubts about the accuracy of the map? And what map do you think has a better claim on scholarship and neutrality? - Jmabel | Talk 05:38, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Messhermit answer three questions:

• Is your map a scan of a mimeograph copy (using roneo paper) of a nationalist pamphlet?
• Why LOC map is included on a Bolivian website (boliviamar.org)? If the map is POV, at least it is not Chilean POV.
• The edit made by 74.225.16.93 was yours?

Jespinos 19:24, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

• You can easily find this map on the net. The fact that the map has that particular color doesn't mean that it was part of a "pamphlet", so if you are going to attack its accuracy there are better arguments against it.
• I reviewed the website that you mentioned and I have not find any map similar to the one that is currently in the main article. The map that you preciously provided as the Chilean Point of View has clearly being edited to portray an irredentist claim to then Bolivian province of Litoral and the Argentinean territory of Patagonia.

Messhermit 19:42, 28 January 2007 (UTC) Messhermit 19:42, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

• I watch it on TV, in a video of a Peruvian or Bolivian protest, maybe is not the same.
• The second question is in relation to the map uploaded by Jmabel, which according to you is Chilean POV.
• The third question was done to avoid a checkuser process.

The following are true antique maps, although not necessarily accurate maps. Jespinos 21:30, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Antique map of South America from 1790

Antique map of South America from 1794

Antique map of South America from 1808

Peace treaty

The Peace treaty section's opening paragraph is a direct cut and paste from onwar.com...

http://www.onwar.com/aced/chrono/c1800s/yr75/fpacific1879.htm

Super Jedi Droid 02:21, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

History of Peru template

I moved this template to the bottom. It doesn't look good down there, but it certainly doesn't belong where it was before. I was about to edit the template to make it fit here, but it is used (more fittingly, I might add) in other articles. Do we need this template here? Can we get a better template? Ufwuct 16:15, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Border Dispute

• The whole recent border dispute between Peru and Chile is regarding the limits of the new Arica-Parinacota Region. Since the legislation creating this new Region was declared unconstitutional, ignoring this as part of the history of the region is not wise at all.
• This whole paragraph doesn't belong to the War of the Pacific at all. It might be included in the Treat of Ancon and the Treaty of Lima (both regarding the frontier between Peru and Chile) that deals with the demarcation of the border. This has nothing to do with the history of the war itself.

Messhermit 17:06, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Maritime Dispute Reignited

The addition of the Recent Development (Maritime Dispute Reignited) section is historically related to the long term consequences of the War of the Pacific. Bdean1963 January 2007

Finally. To answer that, it doesn't belong the article at all. The dispute was closed in the late 1990's when Chile finally complaied with the last parts of the Treaty of Lima in the City of Arica. Messhermit 17:32, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm waiting for a reply. Messhermit 17:54, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

User Bdean1963 still refuses to discuss in a civilized way any change on the article. Messhermit 18:08, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

User:Messhermit

I look forward to discussing the recent maritime dispute between Peru and Chile, which I like the majority of the scholarly community feel is part of a longer national rivalry between the two countries (as reflected in the War of the Pacific). This rivalry has also shaped the current political and popular climates regarding the legal charges facing former President Alberto Fujimori, who is currently detained in Chile. User:Messhermit is disingenuous with his commentary. I recommend Wikipideians review User;Messhermit’s poor record of editing Wikipedia. His recent behavior (including edit warring and personal attacks) led to unsuccessful mediation and User:Messhermits eventual banning from editing the Alberto Fujimori essay. Bdean1963 January 2007

Please stick to the topic and avoid making this a personal dispute. I have being involve in the edition of this page ever since 2004. I have already exposed my arguments for deleting your recent changes in the article:

• It has nothing to do with the War itself, but rather another separate settlement. The Treaty of Ancon (the one that effectively ended the war) and the Treaty of Lima (the one that solved the problem of Arica and Tacna) are separated for at least 40 years of difference.
• The recent dispute deals more with the maritime sovereignty of both countries, rather than a territorial question. This issue was already addressed during Alejandro Toledo's presidency, and even though it continues to be a source of friction between both countries, it traces its origins to a proclamation issued by Chile, Peru and Ecuador in the early 1950’s.
• Also, the article doesn't have accurate information, claiming that the Peruvian Government recalled his ambassador from Santiago or that the article has to deal more with a law defining the boundaries of a new Chilean region rather than unilaterally modify its international borders
• Looking at the history of the talk page, it is more than clear that Bdean1963 unilaterally decides what belongs here and what doesn't. He refused to discuss this topic more than once in the "Talk Page".

Instead of focusing on my "record" (I wonder how "impartial" can a self-proclaimed "Human Right Activist" that uses Wikipedia for selling his own T-shirts on Amazon.com), user Bdean1963 should be more concerned about the accuracy of its sources and about what Wikipedia is about. If he wants to make this a personal dispute, then I believe that he is undermining the real purpose and nature of this project. Messhermit 19:16, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

According to Bdean's twisted quote: "I like the majority of the scholarly community, feel is part of a longer national rivalry between the two countries", then maybe we should include in this article also the long standing dispute between Chile and Peru regarding Ceviche, Pisco and Soccer. It doesn't matter if neither country likes the other, but attempting to justify every single disagreement with this war is politically absurd. Messhermit 19:22, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Also, to inform Bdean about the good relations that Peru and Chile have enjoyed so far is the FACT that Chilean President Michelle Bachelet was the only head of state present in the last Military Parade held Peru, and that Peru and Chile are currently in negotiations to create a joined battalion for UN Peace troops. Messhermit 19:22, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

And once again Bdean1963 is refusing to discuss and keeps his disruptive behavior, avoiding a civilized discussion in this "Talk Page". Messhermit 19:53, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Messhermit thank you for your commentary. While I defend your right to express your opinion, I respectfully disagree with you, not to mention your slapdash slander. In our collective endeavor to advance knowledge about the controversial, yet consequential historical consequences of the War of the Pacific, I trust you will provide sourced facts that will be able to substantiate your opinion. Regards, User:Bdean1963 28 October 2007

For someone that loves to start personal dispute with anybody that disagree with your POV, launch baseless accusations and invent stories, you surely are bold. Anyways, so far you have not provided anything to support your claims (namely, facts) beyond your "feelings" that "this is part of a national rivalry". If you keep insulting me, I'll be force to call a RFA against your person. Avoid this, and understand that opinions and feelings are not good arguments to support an edition. Messhermit 20:19, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I have already initiate a Request for Comment in the History & Geeography section. Bdean, please avoid disrupting the article until this issue is settled. Messhermit 21:14, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Many thanks User:Messhermit for your efforts at resolving this editing dispute. In the meantime, could you please refrain from removing credible open sourced published material useful for understanding the legacy of the War of the Pacific you summarily removeed without discussion. Regards, [User:Bdean1963} 28 January 2007

LOL, talking about lies. It is you the one that keeps pushing this dispute further and further by not discussing anything and keeping with that "my way or the highway" attitude. Hopefully, Wikipedia will put an end to your illegal actions here. Messhermit 21:31, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you User:Cbrown1023 for your helpful intervention regarding the War of the Pacific editing dispute I have had with User:Messhermit. I look forward to resolving the content dispute. Regards, User:Bdean1963 28 January 2007

The paragraph above is just another proof of Bdean's intolerance towards any other POV. Also Bdean, protection does not mean that Wikipedia is endorsing "your" POV. Hopefully, this will put an end to his destructive behavior. Messhermit 00:16, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Given User:Messhermits remedial understanding of scholarship and his prior pattern of deceptive behavior on Wikipedia, his comments pasted above are not surprising, albeit profoundly confused and filled with vitriol. Nevertheless, I reiterate my “good faith” effort at resolving the content dispute over the War of the Pacific and look forward to resolving our different points of view. User:Bdean1963 00:30 29 January 2007

Please comment on content, not on the contributor.

There seems to be no basis for the dispute that I can see. The recent events are sufficiently well-reported to justify a separate article. The disputed material, minus any context and introduction, etc, is already quite large enough to stand alone. With the necessary supporting text it would probably be around 10K in size, well above average. This is based on google alone; current affairs journals should soon be analysing this dispute, doubtless at length.

Considered from the perspective of the primary subject, there is a great that could be said about the War of the Pacific that has not been. I'm woefully ignorant of any political or economic or military results globally, but I am fairly well read on the naval aspects, and it is fair to say that the War of the Pacific had a considerable impact on naval thinking far beyond South America. Allow that that should be included, and consider that referencing the article to a decent standard adds greatly to the size. As a result, the article is likely to grow beyond the recommended 30-40K maximum size quite easily.

So, I am puzzled. Why do you object, assuming that you do, to the creation of a separate article, either on modern Peruvian-Chilean relations, or on the narrower topic of the recent dispute? Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:26, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

There has always being tension between Peru and Chile. That's an historical fact. But assuming that everything goes back to this war is not being serious and it only helps ultra-nationalism in both countries. This was not the first time that Chile and Peru went to war (the war against the Peru-Bolivian Confederation was the first one), and hopefully it would remain as the last one. As explained in my previous editions the Treaty that is currently contested (or at least surrounded by this controversy) was signed almost 40 years after the end of the war and when the frontier between both countries was already settled. I don't understand User:Bdean1963 motives behind his editions, but it is clear that "assuming good faith", I can conclude that he is not well informed about the historical background. Messhermit 22:08, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Also Angus McLellan, I appreciate your efforts to mediate, but I think that the new content is more appropiate for a "peruvian-chilean controversies" article than something directly related with this war. Messhermit 22:08, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Why recent editions do not belong to this article

I'm going to ignore the previos post, a clear sign of lack of respect toward people that don't agree with Bdean's POV. Let's proced with the topic:

The center of this dispute is not about the Peru and Chile historical rivalry, but rather a matter of POV. The last Peruvian-Chilean dispute was already solved before they even became know in their respective countries, and it was more a local dispute (the constitutionality of a Chilean law creating a new region) than an international controversy. At this point, there is no such thing as a border dispute between both countries because each one recognizes the established frontier as demarked in the Treaty of Lima, a totally different from the Treaty of Ancon (the one that actually ended the war). Both Treaties are recognized by International Law and both are totally different documents, legally speaking. Messhermit 18:45, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

The War of the Pacific ended in 1884 and the Treaty of Lima (that dealed with Arica) was signed in 1929, 40 years later. Stating that the current dispute can be directly related to (as of 2007) an incident that happened more than 150 years ago is not accurate at all, and at is best is irredentist and alarmist with the sole purpose of undermining friendly relations between both countries. Such a broad argument can be used to include the dispute that both countries have regarding Ceviche, Pisco and Soccer, just to name a few. Should we also include those disputes in the article about the war? Messhermit 01:18, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Now, the inclusion of this "supposed territorial dispute" as presented by the other party involved in this controversy is merely based on POV. Chile doesn't have to ask whether it can create a new province or not in its own territory, and neither Peru can unilaterally declare part of the new Chilean XV Region as part of its territory. The Constitutional Tribunal of Chile already addressed that the law defining the borders of the Chilean XV Region was unconstitutional on the grounds that it didn't follow the proper procedure that are needed for the creation of a Region, and at any moment ordered or asked the Chilean Government to define its frontier with Peru. It was simply a chilean judicial controversy solved by chileans. Messhermit 01:18, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Issues like the mentioned above can happen at any moment and had indeed happened before. It just need a badly written law (in either Peru or Chile) to once again invoke nationalism. The same can happen in Bolivia, and in many other parts around the world. Messhermit 01:18, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

And apparently, I'm not getting any answer. Messhermit 19:01, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Why the maritime dispute between Chile an Peru doesn't belong to this article?

• Neither the Treaty of Ancon or the Treaty of Lima addressed the issue of maritime sovereignty.
• After the United Stated announced its decision to establish certain territorial rights regarding the sea, many Latin American nations followed the same example. Chile proclaimed sovereignty over its adjacent sea in 1947, followed immediately by Peru the same year.
• Ecuador, Chile and Peru issued a join declaration ("Declaración de Zona Marítima") in 1952.

As exposed here, this has nothing to do with the War of the Pacific. Messhermit 19:01, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree that this "has nothing to do with the War of the Pacific" but the article should anyway have a litle reference about sea borders and a link to an article such as List of Chilean-Peruvian controversies where such information can be exposed under the right topic. Dentren | ^Talk 02:28, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I think that a link that will lead the reader to the List of Chilean-Peruvian controversies its more than enough. Tracing this dispute to this war (or to the war against the Peru-Bolivian Confederacy) it's forcing history to accept only a nationalistic and impartial used by radical parts of both Chilean and Peruvian society. That should not be allowed. Messhermit 02:57, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Please note that he is currently active [8] [9] [10] and busy trying to get me into troubles, but so far no excuse regarding how to solve this articles. User:Bdean1963 has not responded to any of these arguments despite being asked several times to do so. If this trend continues, I will revert the article to its original state. Messhermit 20:05, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I provided User:Messhermit with a good faith effort at resolving an editorial dispute regarding the Alberto Fujimori entry. Unsuccessful mediation resulted in User:Messhermit’s temporary ban on editing the Alberto Fujimori entry, which as I have noted on the Alberto Fujimori talk page, has been disregarded by User:Messhermit. I welcome civil, non-threatening dialogue regarding the editorial/content dispute over the War of the Pacific and Tacna Region entries. I will let User:Messhermit’s recent contributions speak for themselves [11] , [12] [13], [14]. I stand by my assertion that the historical record of the War of the Pacific and the Tacna Region have shaped the recent maritime dispute between Chile and Peru. User:Bdean1963 8 February, 2007

Please avoid advertising yourself and/or your opinions. Stick to the topic and please state with accurate sources why is that the recent maritime dispute belongs here. Thanks. Messhermit 21:17, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

So far more than 2 other wikipedians have agreed with my position that the maritime dispute has nothing to do with the War or the Region. Messhermit 21:23, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Please take note that User:Bdean1963 was blocked for 1 day because of this [15] type of disruptive behavior. As of today he still refuses to talk. Since its being more than 10 days ever since this dispute started and User:Bdean1963 has not responded to any attempt to discuss this issue, I'm reverting the article once again. Messhermit 19:38, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it has "nothing to do with the War". The two things are connected, just like all the various disputes between Ecuador and Peru, or Argentina and Chile, or <other examples here>, are connected. You can't entirely separate these things. Angus McLellan (Talk) 16:16, 13

February 2007 (UTC)

In the dispassionate interest of the advancement of knowledge free from censorship, I respectfully request that User:Messhermit reverts recent edits I have made on the War of the Pacific to accommodate alternative yet balanced points of view to reflect the historical record. User:Bdean1963 13 February, 2007

• Thank you Angus McLellan for posting [16] which gives further support to the historical links between the War of the Pacific and the contemporary maritime dispute between Chile and Peru User:Bdean1963 13 February, 2007

Eventhough I do not always agree on every perspective of historic facts with Messhermit, in this case I fully agree with him. The current "conflict" about the maritime border between Chile and Peru can't be added to this Article, otherwise it would be necessary to add all disputes between both countries, which are quite numerous. But the Article then would not be called "war of the pacific" but "conflicts between Chile and Peru". I think there is no reason to continue discussing about this, as it is quite obvious. Regards --RapaNui 10:37, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Additionally, and not less important, The War of the Pacific is not an article which should only fix on evolution and consecuences of 2 specific countries (Peru and Chile) but 3. Bolivia was also part of this history, and a contious and centric listing of issues between the only 2 first countries would disfigure/distort the article.--RapaNui 10:46, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

My recent edit

My recent edit does not endorse any particular version of the article. It is a process-oriented reversion of an anonymous edit that made substantive and apparently POV changes, with no citation or summary. - Jmabel | Talk 22:10, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I have reworded the last paragraph in order to avoid taking sides on this dispute. Messhermit 19:32, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

The map regarding the pre-war borders between Bolivia, Chile and Peru is accurate and non-controvertial. I don't see any point in changing it for another picture. Messhermit 03:05, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Mediation request

Is this case still active or can I close it? --Ideogram 06:58, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I request that the Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2007-02-08 War of the Pacific remain active, particularly in light of recent editorial changes. Regards, User:Bdean1963 26 February 2007

There doesn't seem to be any activity here. If there is no discussion there can be no mediation. I will close the case; if it needs to be reopened leave a note on my talk page. --Ideogram 04:08, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Too pro Peru

Its a tad obvious, its wildly POV in some cases, the article forgets that perubians had chinese slaves?, how come they appear on the chilean side instead?... how odd.

• The Peruvians did have Chinese "semi"-slaved workers, who were released from their chains by the Chilean Army and for this reason they started to work as cargo and spies for them. It's not odd, it's quite logical. There is even a statue in Tarapaca about this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.37.120.18 (talk) 21:03, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Image:Tarapaca.jpg is erroneus

This map is erroneous: the border between Bolivia-Chile before the 1879 is the 24th parallel (south of Antofagasta and north of Taltal... --Yakoo 22:55, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

No Neutral

Sorry, but clearly this article is not neutral, enclosed up to in the Wikipedia in Spanish is more veraciously that here, I believe that When it has time I will put some references and it will erase the wrong thing. PD: Hello Yakoo MILO 20:42, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

why the peruvian thing at the top of this discussion

i think that POV stuff. clearly demostrates the non-parcial redaction of the article, and the article is also controlled by this Messhermit and i found it not aproppiate. at the end i must state, and i knows this decreace the seriousness of my comment but i have to say it. peruvians are a bunch of whiners. bye. peace for latinoamerica. maybe someday we can make things together. but with this whinery all day. i doub it

Well Mr.Genious, the "Peruvian thing at the top" means that people working within the Peruvian scope (Which doesn't mean people from Peru, just people that are working closely with Peruvian articles) are trying to help fix the article. As far as I've read for what Messehermit has been doing, he has actually rightfully defended the fact that Bolivia had a coastline before the war. And don't worry, calling Peruvians "whiners" shouldn't really affect them (It's not really insulting), it just goes to show how cheap your insults can be (I mean, if I'm not going to post again on Wiki, I'd go for a worser insult...lol). Well, I hope this article can be further improved. Cheers to all who are working to better it. MarshalN20 20:41, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Disambiguate: "The Nitrates War"

I have seen other references to this war as The Nitrates War. Could a disambiguation be added. I am not sure how to do this and also not very sure of the regulations surrounding it. -- Superbock 16:26, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

==

MAP

The current map at the begingn of the article does not consider former Bolivian territory that was hanlded over to argentina due to the war. 200px|thumb|right|This map consider the parts of Puna de Atacama that was once bolivias and are now part of Argentina. Dentren | ^Talk 15:56, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but please consider bolivian territory that was hanlded over to Peru.--190.22.3.99 14:18, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

What would be great is a map that's animated showing boundaries at different times.

Translation

Shouldn't "patria" be translated to "motherland"? I think it's a more appropiate translation than the one we currently have in the article. I know, patria sounds more like "fatherland", but a better translation for me would be "motherland". I think I heard Russians saying "motherland" instead of "fatherland", although the concept is very ambiguous. To clarify, I think patria is "your land", or "my land", meaning "the nation".--J.C. (talk) 22:25, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

the word "patria" has a conection with "pater", that means "father"--190.22.81.52 (talk) 23:46, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Peru-Bolivia Alliance: Defensive not Aggresive

I've read some sections of the article that discuss the alliance treaty between Peru and Bolivia, but only once read something pointing towards the alliance being defensive. I know the alliance between Peru and Bolivia was a defensive one, which means that Peru would defend Bolivia in case of an invasion from any country, and viceversa for Bolivia. Yet, as past discussions here in the Talk Page show, several people (mainly people from Chile) seem to think that the alliance was not defensive but rather an aggresive alliance. By this I mean that they think that Peru simply allied with Bolivia for no reason other than to declar war on Chile. Yet, this is false due to that Peru was drawn into a war that they were not too happy to fight; especially since Peru and Chile had formerly had an alliance versus Spain in the Chincha Islands War. Therefore, I'm posting this here so that future contributors know that the alliance between Bolivia and Peru was defensive.MarshalN20 (talk) 04:41, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

You are right that it was defensive but even so it has been viewed as a hostile alliance in traditional chilean history. In the 19th century Diego Portales and others created the idea of that an union or long standing between Bolivia and Peru would threaten Chiles economic interest and stability. Chile fought in the War of the Confedaration to separe these countries.

Marsha wrote:

By this I mean that they think that Peru simply allied with Bolivia for no reason other than to declar war on Chile. Yet, this is false due to that Peru was drawn into a war that they were not too happy to fight

Honnestly I dont think that Peru got involved in a war just to "honor its alliance", the war nos not fought between noble knights. I they would have knew that they would lose, peru would never got involved in the war. Howerever, I agree of that the alliance was defensive, BUT it was seen as threat by Chileans. Dentren | ^Talk 16:33, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Peru did not expect for Chile to be so well-armed for the conflict. That's not to say that the Peruvians did not also have decent weaponry, but it wasn't a match to Chile's superior armament (which had been provided by Great Britain and other European nations some years earlier). Peru also did have a choice not to honor the defensive alliance they had with Bolivia, but you should take into account that this is an era when not honoring an alliance was a major diplomatic insult on any nation. Remember that these nations represent the ideal that "it is best to die with honor than to live without it." Moreover, the early war saw highly honorful actions, such as those taken by Miguel Grau and the several times Chilean officers offered a peaceful surrender to battered Peruvian and Bolivian armies that could barely continue the fight. It was during the late war that both sides "went dirty," with Chileans destroying Peruvian cities and Peruvians resorting to violent guerrilla tactics.--[|!*//MarshalN20\\*!|] (talk) 04:02, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Incorrect Map

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

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

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

Why you say that "This is currently the best map of the territorial changes due to the war.". Read here [17][18] about that map: Boundary representation not necessarily authoritative. The region ocupied by chileans in Tacna is incorrect. The limit was Sama river. Article 3: The territory of the provinces of Tacna and Arica, bordering to the north by the river Sama...Ancón treaty. What is wrong about this map? [19]

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

Changes

• 1. Bolivian version: Read in [20] page 8. como lo disponía la Constitución boliviana and [21] page 30: como disponía la Constitución de 1871
• 2. Strength: The authors of three countries give different numbers. the Chilean authors equals forces, the Peruvians place smaller forces. Is better write without numbers.
• 3. Location. Pacific coast of Peru and Bolivia. Precision.
• 4. Map Incorrect. The region ocupied by chileans in Tacna is incorrect. The limit was Sama river. Article 3: The territory of the provinces of Tacna and Arica, bordering to the north by the river Sama...Ancón treaty 1884
• 5. Map incorrect. Arica, Iquique and Pisagua were peruvian towns until 1884.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

1. Chilean version said 1874 treaty was broken. NPOV. Bolivian version said the treaty of 1874 only favored to companies with valid contracts, and the contract of 1873 with Antofagasta Nitrate & Railway Company wasn't approved in agreement with Bolivian Constitution of 1871. 1874 Treaty wasn't broken. Bolivia decided to approve the contract if they pay 10% of taxes.
2. It's a summary. All numbers need an article or a section in this article.
3. In 1879, until 1904, there was a Bolivian Coast, the war was there (or the war was in chilean coast?). "South pacific coast of South America" could means "Santiago" or "Guayaquil". I propose "Peruvian and Bolivian coast in South America".
4. Tacna-Chile [22] map is incorrect, the light red region is greater than the real region. [23]. This Tacna map is Tacna-Peru not Tacna-Chile. The limit was Sama river. Article 3: The territory of the provinces of Tacna and Arica, bordering to the north by the river Sama...Ancón treaty.
5. This map borders [24] are incorrect. Arica, Iquique and Pisagua were peruvian towns until 1883/1884 (Signed in 1883. In March 11th 1884 the Treaty of Ancon was promulgated in Lima). The map shows Campaign of Tarapaca in Chile (1879 it was in Peru). Ocupattion of Antofagasta in Chile (1879 it was in Bolivia). limits are incorrect.

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

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

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

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

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

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

1. Agree
2. Agree, but in a new section (or other artcile) not in Warbox.
3. "South pacific coast of South America" could means "Chile" or "Ecuador". The war wasn't there. Antofagasta wasnot in the Bolivian coast? Angamos Combat was in Bolivia not in Chile. Why is inaccurate?
4. It is incorrect. { { legend|#e23d41|occupied by Chile until 1929. } }. The limit of Tacna in that map is incorrect. limit was Sama River. What is wrong in this map? [25]. Read here [26] Boundary representation not necessarily authoritative
5. Here it seems that the Arica battle was in Chile. It was in Peru. It is inaccurate and show peruvians as invaders.

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

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

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

4)Fine. We could use that map.

5) Are you looking at the same map I’m looking? [27]

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

2)Ok, but need armaments and other things.

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

4)Ok.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

6) Please read here [28] tax only affects one company.

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

Review other wars [29][30] with original location names.

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

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

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

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

Congress

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

7) Please review dates. Your change is incorrect.

• 1865-1870. Mariano Melgarejo, president of Bolivia.
• 1871. Mariano Melgarejo died.
• 1872. Congress declared concessions null. Please read, page 23: [31]
• 1873. Contract between the Nitrate Company with the Bolivian government, without Congress approval.
• 1878. Congress ratified the contract as required by the Bolivian Constitution of 1871.

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

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

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

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

As you wrote in [32] "A National Constituent Assembly would approve the contract only if the company would pay a 10 cents tax per quintal". Is the same contract. Arafael (talk) 13:42, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

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

See the difference? Certainly not the same contract.

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

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

Guano

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

Bolivia

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Both sources provided are reliable.

What I'm adding is a fact and I don't know why you're even trying to dispute it when it's very easy to find more sources backing it up. Here's a different one; [33]

And another one;

[34]

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

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

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

No neutral

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

I'm not too keen to repeat myself, especially when I think I'm being crystal clear. But let me say this one more time. Hopefully this time it sinks in.
Who says that I'm using (http://es.wikisource.org/wiki/Declaraci%C3%) to claim that Bolivia declared war on Chile? Where do I say that? Please understand, that the source(s) I'm using [35] [36] is not the one you're talking about.
I tried to open the link you posted but to no available. Please post a working link from a realible website if you're going to dispute the neutrality of my sources. Likeminas (talk) 20:11, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Read [37] and [38]

Read [39]

Bolivia didn't declare a war.

May 1st 1879 decret: [40] where the May 1st 1879 decret says that Bolivia declares war on Chile?

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

May 1st 1879 decret: [41] where the May 1st 1879 decret says that Bolivia declares war on Chile? This is just silly. I said several times I'm not using that reference. Why do you keep repeating yourself?

For Bolivia declaring war on Chile please read:[42] (Chilean source) and international, thus, neutral sources [[43], [44], [45] and[46].

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

Books: [47] [48] and [49]

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

As per the Huascar surrendering or not here's a source stating just that [50] and here's a book stating the same [51] but I guess can work out other type of wording such as: The Huascar was, then, taken over or something of that kind.

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

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

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

This is the March 1st bolivian decree. [52]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Please read these version about March 1st Bolvian decree [53] and [54].

On March 1st, Bolivia broke all relations with Chile and seized chilean properties [55]. Bolivia didn't declare war on Chile.

The current text only shows one version.

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

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

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

I think I did.

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

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

As it seems to me, this is the most correct information that I have found regarding this matter: [56]. In summary, it basically states that (in order):

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

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

Check out these books about the Bolivian decree [57] of March 1:

Mariano Felipe Paz Soldan - Peruvian [58] Luis Peñaloza Cordero - Bolivian [59] Atilio Sivirichi - Peruvian [60] Juan Pereira Fiorilo - Bolivian [61] Alejandro Soto Cárdenas - Chilean [62] Casto Rojas - Bolivian [63] Alcira Cardona Torrico - Bolivian [64]. Arafael (talk) 13:39, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In other words, even though keeping neutrality is important, the main issue is to find out which source is correct and which is incorrect. Both cannot be correct as Bolivia cannot have declared and not declared war at the same time, that is the first thing to establish. Also, it must be established that the sources provided by Arafael are verifiable and reliable sources; and he provides Peruvian, Bolivian, and Chilean opinions on the same subject (check source 62 for the Chilean opinion) and they all agree. The sources provided by Likeminas are also reliable, but this source [65] does not agree with the information set, and brings up a new information by stating that Bolivia declared war on May 18.--[|!*//MarshalN20\\*!|] (talk) 23:57, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Under the Chilean Constitution [66], the president declares war (Art 82. Num 18) [67] on congressional approval (law 4 : Chile declares war on Peru)

Under the Bolivian Constitution [68] Only the congress declares war by law (Art. 89 N. 2). The Bolivian document, March 1, [69] is not a law from congress, it is a presidential decret.

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

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

Non sequiteur Rafael.

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

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

Bolivian decret [70] march 1 was not a declaration of war because it was not a law from bolivian congress. According bolivian constitution of 1878 [71], in 1879 only the congress declares war by law.

About chilean declaration of war on Peru [72] it was according chilean constitution of 1833[73]. Pinto declares war with a law from chilean congress.

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

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

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

Please ask yourselves these questions:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

3. Are they written in a neutral language?

3- No. Read in [74] www.globalsecurity.org: "a humiliation the Peruvians", "Daza...as brutal and incompetent as his predecessors".

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Please notice that other reliable sources such as the New York Times also talk about humiliation[75] in their reports. So that statement can easily be sourced as well, even though, that's not my intention.

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

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

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

RfC: Did Bolivia declare war on Chile??

• Yes. It took me all of 2 minutes to find a reliable source to verify this: [76] Dlabtot (talk) 16:43, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Here are some more sources: [77], [78], [79], [80], [81].... should I go on? Dlabtot (talk) 17:06, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Just to Recap discussion of Bolivia declaring war on Chile

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

is Globalsecurity.org a Neutral source?

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

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

Yet, given the context of the war several sources talk about humiliation. See for example the headline of the NY times in 1879. The humiliation of Peru; The battles which preceded the occupation of Lima. [82]

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

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

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

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

Encarta, Globalsecurity.org and Onwar.com

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

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

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

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

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

I would suggest checking through these: [83] Concentrate on the works published by reputable academic publishers – University Presses, Greenwood Publishing, Routledge imprints, etc. For what it's worth, this book, published by a research unit associated with Durham University, states that Bolivia declared war on 14 March 1879. But check through at least a couple of dozen reputable works; if there are differences of opinion on the facts among the most reliable sources, include and attribute both versions. Jayen466 17:26, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This is a quote from user Arafael, which argues the opposing view of the argument (I'm attempting to be the "neutral" third party between him and Likeminas), which is the one in favor of Bolivia not declaring war on March: "Check out these books about the Bolivian decree [84] of March 1: Mariano Felipe Paz Soldan - Peruvian [85] Luis Peñaloza Cordero - Bolivian [86] Atilio Sivirichi - Peruvian [87] Juan Pereira Fiorilo - Bolivian [88] Alejandro Soto Cárdenas - Chilean [89] Casto Rojas - Bolivian [90] Alcira Cardona Torrico - Bolivian [91]."--[|!*//MarshalN20\\*!|] (talk) 16:14, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

MarshallN20 so much for neutrality.

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

17:44, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

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

• Chilean source [92]. Historian Guillermo Lagos Carmona. History of the borders of Chile.
• Bolivian source [93]. Diplomat and historian Ramiro Prudencio Lizón. The occupation of Antofagasta.
• Peruvian source [94]. Historian Atilio Sivirichi. History of Peru

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

That’s been my point from the very beginning.

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

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

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

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

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

Findings so far

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

True and fair neutrality

Thanks for that input.

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

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

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

Guillermo Lagos Carmona, chilean historian, lawyer and ambassador, in his book: "History of the borders of Chile" [95] page 65, Section 4: "The declaration of war of bolivia" considers the Bolivian decree from president Daza (March 1st) , against Chilean interests in Bolivia, as a declaration of war.

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

Ramiro Prudencio Lizón, bolivian historian and diplomat, in "La Razon", bolivian newspaper, digital edition, Feb 20th 2008:[96] The occupation of Antofagasta: "So that Chile could move further north, there was a need for a formal declaration of war. And it wasn't that country but rather Bolivia that sent an internal decree that afterwards would be interpreted as a real declaration of war. This was published on March 1st 1879.. Also in [97] "Correo del Sur", bolivian newspaper, Feb 14th 2004.

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

Atilio Sivirichi Tapia, peruvian historian and professor, in his book, "History of Peru", page 193, [98][99]: "Bolivia limited itself to declaring the 1st of March, with relations with Chile cut, a statement declaring the expulsion of Chileans. This deed, was interpreted by the Chilean government, as declaration of war as a cause for the occupation of the whole coast".

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

Tommaso Caivano, italian historian, in his book : "History of the American war between Chile, Peru and Bolivia", Page 66 (Il 17 marzo, il Gabinetto...) [100][101] : "This decree, as it clearly reads, just gives some actions on the state of war ... and, as textually detail, "during the war that Chile has promoted to Bolivia", it was interpreted by Chile, in an original way. The Government of Chile said that the decree contained a declaration of war."

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

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

Bolivia never formally declared war on Chile but stated in the decree of 1st March that Chiled had put forward a war against Bolivia. The Chilean side regarded the Bolivian decree as a de facto declaration of war. [102]Dentren | ^Talk 15:06, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

How about this for statement: "After the Chilean invasion of Antofagasta, Hilarión Daza made a presidential decree which demanded the expulsion of Chileans and the nationalizing of Chilean private property. Due to its aggressiveness, the Chilean government understood the decree as a declaration of war. However, although both nations had already taken aggressive actions, in reality no war had yet been formally declared from either side of the conflict."--[|!*//MarshalN20\\*!|] (talk) 00:56, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Looks good to me.

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

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

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

crisis and war

Is "Latin America's wars. Robert L. Scheina" a valid source?

1*On march 18 Bolivia declared war and confiscated all Chilean property.

- It was not a declaration of war.

2*Peruvian decision-makers feared that if they did not honor the secreat treaty, Bolivia might join with Chile and seize Tarapaca nitrate fields.

- It's a personal opinion from the author.

3*President Prado sent Jose Arnaldo Marquez to Argentina in an attempt....

- It's wrong: Jose Arnaldo Marquez was a writer not a diplomat. [103]

Aníbal Víctor de la Torre was in Buenos Aires and met with the Argentine president. Is the Argentine president who asked about the alliance [104]

On 26 asked me a conference the President and having been understood that its purpose had been to know the attitude taken in the matter was ventilated between Chile and Bolivia, and perhaps even be prepared to render assistance to Argentina in the event of a break with Chile. At that conference told me that he had news that the mediation of Peru would not be admitted. As I had not received instructions of any kind, I had to evade the answer he expected, again losing the opportunity that I had to get the alliance, without asking.. Aníbal Víctor de la Torre

In 1878 and 1875 Peru avoided the alliance with Argentina [105]

4*Peru declared war on Chile the same day (5 april).

- It's wrong: Peru did not declare any war.

Peru declared the casus foederis of Defensive Alliance treaty. On April 6 was also consummated the act more serious and far-reaching alliance of war between Peru and Bolivia, or the enactment of the casus foederis, pursuant to the established in the secret treaty of February 6, 1873, is Lima signed in the respective protocol and issue the president of Peru following the decree that legally constituted the outbreak of hostilities against Chile. [106]

Arafael (talk) 19:37, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

A response to the points and source that you posted.

1*It was not a declaration of war -Considering all the sources provided it's been concluded that it was an informal declaration of war in the form of a decree.

2*It's a personal opinion from the author. -Valid argument and should be discussed because the source is reliable.

3*President Prado sent Jose Arnaldo Marquez to Argentina in an attempt.

-Jose Arnaldo Marquez is indeed a writer. Scheina writes that he was sent to Argentina and should be discussed. As for the source you provide it states that (Since the days of the Lavalle mission in Chile, Peru wanted to seek an alliance with Argentina that put the Argentine government in Buenos Aires into a difficult situation). This source supports the idea that Peru was openly seeking an alliance with Argentina.

4*Peru declared war on Chile the same day (5 april). -Regretfully, at this time I am unable to view the document that you link. Hopefully other editors may participate. Selecciones de la Vida (talk) 22:45, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Arafael, could you please provide the page numbers with the citations you make? That way I'll be able to check them with more efficiency.--[|!*//MarshalN20\\*!|] (talk) 11:54, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

The first thing to note is that the March 18th date is incorrect. Consensus has been achieved that March 1st was the day of the declaration, and that it was an informal declaration of war in the eyes of Chile (just like the invasion of Antofagasta was an informal declaration of war by the eyes of Bolivia). The second statement sounds like PoV from the author, but I need to see the exact page so that I may know if it is cited in the book (there is a works cited part of it in the last pages of it; which makes the book verifiable and therefore reliable). The third statement, about the diplomat, should really be checked (Jose Arnaldo seems incorrect as he is a writer, not a diplomat). The part about the support of alliance from Peru and Argentina, there is a difference between ongoing past attempts from Peru and the current situation during the War of the Pacific. Essentially, Peru may have indeed tried various other past times to seek an alliance with Argentina, but at the moment of the war the Peruvian diplomat did not have any mission to propose an alliance to Argentina. Yet, if that was not the purpose of the Peruvian diplomat, then what was he doing in Argentina? This matter has to be further investigated too. Remember the WP:OR rule, however, and look for verifiable sources that already state the information and not for primary sources where you have done your own research.--[|!*//MarshalN20\\*!|] (talk) 11:54, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

1.it was an informal declaration of war, for Chile.

Only the bolivian congress could declare war, not the president.

2. Page 376 [107] "Latin America's wars. Robert L. Scheina". I think that the source is not reliable. It has mistakes.

3.

- Are there any other source about "Jose Arnaldo Marquez" in BsAs as a envoy?

Page 33. [108] This policy placed in a difficult situation to minister in Buenos Aires, Anibal Victor de La Torre.

- Since March 8, 1878; Anibal Victor de La Torre was a peruvian minister in BsAs. www.rree.gob.pe

- Selecciones de la Vida : "that put the Argentine government in Buenos Aires into a difficult situation". It is incorrect. Peruvian minister Anibal Victor de La Torre was in difficult situation.

- When Chilean President Pinto, explain of the origin of the war, he did not include anything about Argentina. New York Times, Aug 1, 1879.

4. Peru did not declare any war. Peru declared casus foederis of Defensice Alliance treaty.

(El 6 de abril quedó asimismo consumado...) Page 342. Vicuña Mackena. Chilean historian . Also in Declaration of casus foederis

Arafael (talk) 14:42, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Here we go again.
In all honesty, I haven't read all the sources presented by Arafael, but from a quick glance at some of them I can say that they seem to be reliable, and so far he's made valid objections.
When I have more spared time (which I think will be tomorrow night) I will read carefully the disputed points, I will try to find additional sources and after I’m done I will post my thoughts and findings here.
Likeminas (talk) 21:16, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Gallery?

Why is it better to have a picture gallery than to have the pictures under their relevant sections? Please explain this to me. Likeminas (talk) 14:22, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

If there are too many images about the same issue or images that doesn't fit the section or images with different size but equal importance or images that "break" the layout of the page, etc, then can be better to gather the images in a gallery and wait for a selection or better distribution of the images. I think now it is OK.

--Keysanger (talk) 21:35, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

All images are of the same size now. Likeminas (talk) 22:50, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Section "The War"

Hi Arafael,

Can you explain me why did you tagged following text?

During this time Peru acquiesced to Bolivia's request of secret alliance fearing that Bolivia would join with Chile and seize Peru's nitrate field in Tarapaca[neutrality disputed]. Peru prepared for war with President Mariano Prado sending an envoy to Argentina in an attempt to draw that nation into a military alliance against Chile.[neutrality disputed][12]Argentina was invited to join the Defensive Alliance since it had a territorial dispute with Chile regarding the region of Patagonia.[13][clarification needed]''

Why did you delete my added references?.

Thanks,

--Keysanger (talk) 21:52, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

There's a small discussion above under Crisis and War I believe Arafael explains there why he added the tags.

Why your references were deleted I don't know.

Likeminas (talk) 22:54, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

In regards to this statement that Arafael tagged as POV

During this time Peru acquiesced to Bolivia's request of secret alliance fearing that Bolivia would join with Chile and seize Peru's nitrate field in Tarapaca

I will only add that most books, journals and even encyclopedias have an editorial stance. However, Wikipedia doesn't require that the sources use a NPOV language, it is how we write it in the article that must adhere to the policy of neutrality not the source per se.

Likeminas (talk) 23:36, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Excuse me, I've unintentionally deleted it. My intention was to return to the previous version where there are a discusion [109]. Arafael (talk) 13:20, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Could we finish this [110]? Arafael (talk) 18:42, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Point 1) was already settled.

point 2) I’ve explained why your objection is incorrect. But in case I was not clear, let me reiterate it. It is us, as contributors that must comply with NPOV, not the source.

3) doesn’t mention any names but rather an envoy, which may I add, has been corroborated by at least two sources and explained in detail by the last reference provided by Keysanger

4)No comment.

Likeminas (talk) 19:21, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

The question was Is "Latin America's wars. Robert L. Scheina" a reliable source?. Arafael (talk) 19:43, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

And the answer is yes.

but in case you want to get a second opinion, I'd recommend you to take your question to the the RSN (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:RSN) and see what people say.

Likeminas (talk) 20:09, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

I can't understand why

Peru prepared for war with President Mariano Prado sending an envoy to Argentina in an attempt to draw that nation into a military alliance against Chile.[neutrality disputed][12]

is tagged with neutrality disputed.

The argentine Site http://www.argentina-rree.com/6/6-081.htm La misión Balmaceda: asegurar la neutralidad argentina en la guerra del Pacífico

"En parte, el cambio de actitud del gobierno argentino [to neutrality in war 1879] hacia Chile se debió a los resultados de las negociaciones entabladas con Perú. El gobierno del último país había instruido inicialmente a su ministro en Buenos Aires, Aníbal Víctor de la Torre, a ofrecer a la Argentina los territorios bolivianos situados entre los 24º y 27º de latitud en la costa oeste, a cambio del ingreso argentino en el conflicto contra el gobierno de Chile."

Can Arafael tell me what should be no-neutral there?

Your reference :

In 1878 and 1875 Peru avoided the alliance with Argentina http://www.unjbg.edu.pe/basadre/pdf/0103.pdf

is about 1878 and 1875 and not about 1879.

--Keysanger (talk) 19:48, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Likeminas

Robert L. Scheina said : "Peru acquiesed to Bolivia's request and began to prepare for war. President Prado sent Jose Arnaldo Marquez to Argentina. in an attempt to draw that nation..." [111] It make mistakes.

Jose Arnaldo Marquez was not a diplomat, he is a writer. Are there any other source about "Jose Arnaldo Marquez" in BsAs as a envoy?

About: "Peru acquiesed to Bolivia's request and began to prepare for war" It's a personal opinion. MarshalN20 : "...sounds like PoV from the author". Selecciones: "Valid argument..."

Keysanger

about "Peru prepared for war with President Mariano Prado sending an envoy to Argentina in an attempt to draw that nation into a military alliance against Chile". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arafael (talk • contribs) 22:19, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Aníbal Víctor de la Torre was not an envoy. He was in BsAs as peruvian minister since 1875.

You are writing only one version. Aníbal Víctor de la Torre was in Buenos Aires and met with the Argentine president. Is the Argentine president who asked about the alliance [112]

el 26 me pidió una conferencia S. E. el Presidente y habiendo tenido lugar comprendí que su objeto había sido conocer la actitud que adoptaríamos en la cuestión que se ventilaba entre Chile y Bolivia y quizás aun si estaríamos dispuestos al fin a prestar auxilio a la Argentina en caso de un rompimiento con Chile. En esa conferencia me dijo que tenía noticia de que la mediación del Perú no sería admitida. Como ya no había recibido instrucciones de ninguna clase, bien a mi pesar tuve que eludir la respuesta que él esperaba, perdiendo de nuevo la oportunidad que se me presentaba para conseguir la alianza, sin solicitarla, lo que a mi juicio habría sido muy fácil entonces.

When Chilean President Pinto, explain of the origin of the war, he did not include anything about Argentina. New York Times, Aug 1, 1879.

Arafael (talk) 22:14, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

It's cricial that you read WP:POV and WP:NPOV

Hard facts are really rare. What we most commonly encounter are opinions from people (POVs). Inherently, because of this, most articles on Wikipedia are full of POVs. An article which clearly, accurately, and fairly describes all the major, verifiable points of view will, by definition, be in accordance with Wikpedia's NPOV policy.

Arafael, it's not enough that you claim it makes mistakes. If it makes mistakes, you must point out how and provide another reliable source that contradicts the statement you're disputing. MarshalN20 and you might think it sounds like POV from the author but let me say this again, and hopefully this one will be clear enough to be understood. Sources do not have to be NPOV, our statments in the article do.
I beg other users to intervene, because I fail to understand what part of what I have been repeatedly saying isn't clear! Likeminas (talk) 22:37, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Problem 1

Peru prepared for war with President Mariano Prado sending an envoy to Argentina in an attempt to draw that nation into a military alliance against Chile

We are talking about the time after on February 14, 1879.

• It is irrelevant although X was a writer, a embassador or minister. He was the envoy of the Peru in Argentina. If any one does not agree, then we make a quotation of the source, in this case the Argentine Site http://www.argentina-rree.com/6/6-081.htm:

El gobierno del último país había instruido inicialmente a su ministro en Buenos Aires, Aníbal Víctor de la Torre, a ofrecer a la Argentina los territorios bolivianos situados entre los 24º y 27º de latitud en la costa oeste, a cambio del ingreso argentino en el conflicto contra el gobierno de Chile.

• Arafael means Argentina wanted to join the Alliance. Right!. Add the the text with a source (reference). He can use something like (pleaase dont repeat it!) :

In 1873 and 1879, Argentina began talks to join the Defensive Alliance since it had a territorial dispute with Chile regarding the region of Patagonia.\<ref\>http://www.jstor.org/stable/2510820?seq=6\</ref\>

I think that is all. There are only sourced text and no one can feel pissed.

--Keysanger (talk) 18:35, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Where in [113] said that "Peru prepared for war with President Mariano Prado sending an envoy... "?.Arafael (talk) 19:11, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

You are right. I deleted "prepared for war". --Keysanger (talk) 19:27, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

About 24º and 27º: It was a vague formulation, that do not deserve consideration. Is it a "preparation of war"? "tan vago en la formulación que...no merecía consideración".

I deleted "prepared for war". Now there should be no problem. --Keysanger (talk) 19:29, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Please, do not remove tags until we reach a consensus.

What is the Problem now?? --Keysanger (talk) 19:29, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Arafael (talk) 19:20, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

• Problem solver: Delete the word Envoy and replace it with this:

Peru prepared for war with President Mariano Prado exhorting his representative in Argentina, Aníbal Víctor de la Torre, to offer that nation Bolivian territories in exchange of military alliance against Chile .

Likeminas (talk) 19:33, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree with your text without paragraph "...Peru prepared for war with President Mariano Prado sending an envoy to Argentina...". Arafael (talk) 19:35, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi Arafael,

You deleted a second time my references to the peruvian offer to Argentina after the beginning of the war:

http://www.argentina-rree.com/6/6-081.htm La misión Balmaceda: asegurar la neutralidad argentina en la guerra del Pacífico]:

"En parte, el cambio de actitud del gobierno argentino [to neutrality in war] hacia Chile se debió a los resultados de las negociaciones entabladas con Perú. El gobierno del último país había instruido inicialmente a su ministro en Buenos Aires, Aníbal Víctor de la Torre, a ofrecer a la Argentina los territorios bolivianos situados entre los 24º y 27º de latitud en la costa oeste, a cambio del ingreso argentino en el conflicto contra el gobierno de Chile."

That is a good reference (from a third party). I write it again as a full text with translation, that you can improve.

--Keysanger (talk) 22:05, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

2 new sections

I added the sections "Argentine Position" and "Diplomatic efforts" in order to clarify the article. Also I moved to the new sections the paragraph the needed text.

No offense but the sections are poorly written, and so are the translations.

I also think that the newly created section Chile requested neutrality from Peru is unwarranted, as I'm quite sure that it will lead to more disputes of neutrality.

Perhaps, if you post the the changes you have in mind here first, we could then help with redaction and translation.

Likeminas (talk) 01:07, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

--Keysanger (talk) 22:43, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi Likeminas,

I am surprised!, You work long enough in Wikipedia to know the principle that YOU, LIKEMINAS are responsible for every article apeared in Wikipedia, therefore Wikipedia:Be bold.

Thank you for saying that my english is poorly written, I think it is lesser than poorly (right written?).

But I am very disappointed of you because you critizied me instead of correct my awful english, therefore Wikipedia:Be bold.

Chile requested neutrality from Peru is unwarranted?. Delete it and I will find the reference for the statement in less than 1 day! (after I know of your delete). Or you want to be famous and Wikipedia:Be bold yourself?

At least, please don't break the postings of other wikipedians, write your posting after the end of the last users's posting.

Don't worry to critize my writtings but it is better you correct it and forget it.

best regards, --Keysanger (talk) 11:09, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Keysanger:

First off, don't take it personally. Please note, that I'm criticizing your new additions to the article. Not you as an editor.

I previously said that singling out the fact that Chile requested neutrality from Peru is unwarranted because it mainly gives undue weight to that particular position and not because it is unreferenced.

In any case, Chile requesting neutrality from Peru does not need to have a separate section as it is not an extensive discussion that cannot be included into another section.

Finally, yes, you can and perhaps should be bold. But considering the slow progress, sensitivity and the recent inclination to quickly raise flags of it might advisable that we all to discuss major changes to the article before implementing them.

By the way, I'm responding here because I'm addressing this section, and not your post below.

Regards

Likeminas (talk) 13:18, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

We have again a problem with the images, because the section "The war" is (still) too short. Should we delete or move an image? which? Do we need 2 images of the Huascar?

--Keysanger (talk) 22:48, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

About "Chile requested neutrality from Peru" is incorrect. Why not "Peru request to Chile deoccupied Antofagasta". Arafael (talk) 13:57, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

I put already the reference to "Chile requested neutrality from Peru", it is absolutly correct.

Why do you say that it is incorrect?

If you have a seriously reference to what Peru requested from Chile, I ask you to put it, more, YOU HAVE TO PUT IT or we will be writting a biased article.

But, please, be carefull by your edits, yesterday you write twice the same paragraph.

--Keysanger (talk) 16:46, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Keysanger. See? That's what I meant.

Controversial articles are not easy, I lernt a lot about the issue but Arafael will lernt a lot more than me. --Keysanger (talk) 16:46, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Arafael you conveniently or perhaps unintentionally (again?) deleted this sourced statement:

When war broke out Argentina sent a naval squadron to Rio Negro menacing the Chilean dominion of the Straits of Magellan. However, it has been argued that the Chilean naval superiority was the main factor preventing Argentina from taking part in the war.

Please stop. I want to assume good faith from you, but it seems that you're here to push your Peruvian POV instead of improving the article.

Likeminas (talk) 14:25, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Please correct me if I push Peruvian Pov (or other) instead of improving the article. Arafael (talk) 14:42, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

STOP DELETING MY REFERENCES!!

HI ARAFAEL,

YOU DELETE MY REFERENCES FOR A THIRD TIME!

If you delete my references againg you will be banned of the english wikipedia.

--Keysanger (talk) 16:52, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Keysanger: Take it easy. And Please lose the 'ALL CAPS'

You did not understand what I said about the section Chile requested neutrality from Peru Let me say it again; It's unwarranted not because it lacks sources, it is unwarranted because it gives undue weight to that particular fact.

And no, Arafael will not be banned, at most he will be blocked.

I think I will request to have this page protected, so that we can settle some issues here before implementing any changes in the article.

Likeminas (talk) 12:56, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

• Keysanger: Texts are in history and you could rewrite them.
• About "the treaty". Could we write "the treaty of alliance" instead of "the defensive treaty" or "the secret treaty"?

Arafael (talk) 19:34, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

The thing Arafael is that it was, indeed, a secret treaty. There's nothing biased about calling it what it was.

With respect to the treaty being defensive, yes, it was. But only from a Bolivian and Peruvian POV. Chile did not see it as defensive.

Likeminas (talk) 19:54, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

It was a "Treaty of Defensive Alliance with an aditional article that kept it secret".

Read [114] It said. "The Republics of Bolivia and Peru, seeking to strengthen a solemn way the links between them, thereby increasing their strength and mutually guaranteed certain rights, stipulated in this Defensive Treaty of Alliance..."

It does not said "...in this Secret Treaty of Alliance".

Is this text necesary "On March 14 the Chilean Foreign Affairs Minister Alejandro Fier..". It was not an immediate request.

Arafael (talk) 21:41, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I take it easy and use the shift keys because it seems to me that Arafael ignores the basic rules of wikipedia.

I warned Arafael three times and he continued to delete my references. He told about other themes but he didn't apologize. We shouldn't accept such behavior and the most of the wikipedia writers see it also so.

References are the connection with the sources and wikipedia is nothing without sources. If we begin to delete the references to the sources then we will lost wikipedia.

We should request to have this page protected, so that we can settle some issues here before implementing any changes in the article.

Likeminass, given that your english is better than mine, please talk to a admin about this issue.

I recognize Arafael's work to improve the article, but he should take more time by his edits.

--Keysanger (talk) 16:55, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Toward war

• Crisis and Main article: Treaty of alliance between Peru and Bolivia of 1873? It do not talk about treaty.

Anti:The secret treaty was part of the war. The link and some considerations must be included

• Ok, but do not repeat texts.

• Occupation of Antofagasta? Toward war is better. It includes diplomatic efforts.

Anti:Not every occupation leads to war. See Perejil Island, Snipe incident and others. So "Toward war" is wrong. You have deleted my "Diplmatic efforts" chapter. Do you remember it?

• Occupation was not neutral. According bolivian POV it was an invasion.

• About "Chilean government officials and vested interests alike..." Read [115] "Los empresarios, la politica y la Guerra del Pacifico. Luis Ortega. Santiago de Chile. 1984"

Anti:POV because it gives undue weight to that particular fact.

• It is a realiable source. It shows references. Telegrams and newspapers.

• "...the military balance between Chile..." It is a personal opinion.

Anti:???

• About "Bolivia requested to Peru to activate the Secret alliance treaty of 1873...".
• Include in your text first part of the treaty. It said "Republics of Bolivia and Peru...formulate the present treaty of Defensive Alliance...Article I. The High Contracting Parties...obliging themselves...to defend themselves against all foreign aggression".

Anti:DEFENSIV is POV because ... you know why, Likeminas told you already. Secret is not POV because ...

• Defensive Treaty of Alliance (Peruvian POV).
• Secret Treaty of Alliance (Chilean POV).
• Treaty of Alliance (NPOV)
• "...the defensive alliance treaty of 1873. It had an article that kept it secret..." This sets a time that is defensive and is secret. Also links to Treaty of alliance between Peru and Bolivia of 1873

• Is this text necesary "On March 14 the Chilean Foreign Affairs Minister Alejandro Fier..". It was not an immediate request.

Anti:right, if you say, but write the reference.

• It was on March 17.

• Keysanger :
• If you consider that I acted with malicious intent, please tell me. I will explain my reasons or correct my edition.

Anti:I dont consider your edits malicious, not yet, but you aren't accurate enough.

• Also remember: "Wikipedia has a neutral point of view, which means we strive for articles that advocate no single point of view". Then please read also peruvian and bolivian sources.

Anti:for example "defensiv" or "Chilean government officials and vested interests alike" are POVs

• About "Chilean government officials and vested interests alike". The source is a chilean book.

• Thank you for found this source "Gonzalo Bulnes, Chile and Peru : the causes of the war of 1879" in http://www.archive.org/details/chileperucauseso00bulnuoft

Anti:Read it, but not POV-Read

• Arafael (talk) 13:32, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

--Keysanger (talk) 18:05, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

• Arafael (talk) 13:43, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

NPOV

1. POV Map. Puna de atacama incorrect. Without parallels. Previous map was designed among colaborators from Chile and Peru in [116] and [117]

Please tell us what is incorrect.

Puna de atacama is incorrect. Do not show parallels.

2. Only one POV about 1873 alliance.

Please tell me what do you mean with "2. Only one POV about 1873 alliance."

only shows "secret" POV not "defensive" POV

3. twice "On 6th February 1873 Peru and Bolivia..."

Please tell me what do you mean with 3..."

doubled paragraph, but 79.224.215.3 removed

4. Only one POV : Occupation of Antofagasta; Other POV: Invasion of Antofagasta

Please tell me what do you mean with "4..."

Invasion is the other POV

5. This reference was removed http://www.memoriachilena.cl/archivos2/pdfs/MC0000309.pdf Los empresarios, la politica y la Guerra del Pacifico. Luis Ortega. Santiago de Chile. 1984. (Page 18. File Antony Gibbs & Sons AGA. Valparaiso to Londres. Private N 25. March 6, 1878)

You know why

It is a Telegram from Valparaiso to Londres (March 6, 1878)

Arafael (talk) 13:08, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

None of your reasons justify a POV-tag. --Keysanger (talk) 22:08, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

I disagree.

I placed the clause about the secret pact within the reference. Leaving it in italic and under a separate paragraph might come across as Chilean POV. Likeminas (talk) 12:53, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Also add first article and preamble, not only the additional article.

Keysanger:

Please do not remove NPOV message until the dispute is resolved. Arafael (talk) 13:27, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Please do not remove NPOV message again. It is not "vandalism" [118] Arafael (talk) 16:07, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Again. Arafael (talk) 16:14, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Arafael I didn't remove your tag.

Regarding the issues you raise; 1) I agree. The other map seems to be better. So I would have no objection in reinstating that one.

2)If to Peru and Bolivia the treaty was "defensive" and to Chile was "secret and/or offensive" then the article should display ALL POV's.

4)This point is just petty. Nonetheless, I should say that invasion might be somewhat weasel. So I would just leave as it is.

Likeminas (talk) 16:27, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Of course, other user removed it.

1) Agree 2) Agree, We could include All POV's once, and the rest only as an "alliance" 4)Other: Could we join crisis+antofagsta as "crisis". Arafael (talk) 17:05, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

We're in agreement. go ahead and implement the changes

Likeminas (talk) 17:57, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Review, a first version. Arafael (talk) 19:44, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

BOLD

1) No one had said WHY the new map is wrong.

I say the map File:Pacifico1879.svg is wrong

• because the showed Chile-Bolivia doesn't fit the real border after the war
• because Argentina has a shorter typesize
• because the map doesn't have any sources for the border Peru-Bolivia

the new map in contrast is better because:

• use the Generic Mapping Tools border database
• use the same typesize for all country names
• use File:Departamento moquegua 1865.JPG and File:MPazSoldan.1888-2xChile.djvu to set the Borders in the Puna de Atacama and Bolivia-Peru (the border in Puna de Atacama was contested and is shadowed)

Please say WHY do you find your map better! (Keysanger.)

I agree with whoever wrote this. The new map is better. However, it could and should be improved. It has two major errors:

1. It lacks the parallels. If you haven't noticed, this war heavily revolves around the parallels as one of the war disputes and border peace treaties. 2. The "Chilean territories before war" color looks confusing. I don't know if it is pointing to Argentina or to Chile. Also, there is no explanation if whether the territories in brown were disputed between Argentina and Chile (which I think they were).--[|!*//MarshalN20\\*!|] (talk) 02:51, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

• File:Wotp.en.svg

- Only Chile has "black color" boundary after war

- Puna de Atacama area in File:MPazSoldan.1888-2xChile.djvu is greater than File:Wotp.en.svg

- It lacks the parallels

- Ok. use the Generic Mapping Tools border database

- Ok. has many cities and rivers

• File:Pacifico1879.svg

- "because the showed Chile-Bolivia doesn't fit the real border after the war".

It is a personal opinion

The border was verified by many colaborators in [119]

- "because Argentina has a shorter typesize".

Then increase it.

- "because the map doesn't have any sources for the border Peru-Bolivia".

Incorrect. Please see [120] Para establecer el límite entre Perú y Bolivia es ha utilizado este mapa: Departamento_moquegua_1865.JPG —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arafael (talk • contribs) 14:33, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

It isn't a personal opinion. It is the Generic Mapping Tools border database. Many colaborators is warrant for nothing, if they don't use a good method. And they didn't use it. The today boundary in Puna de Atacama is actually very diferent as showed in the "Many colaborators" map.

The Bolivia-Argentina Boundary was modified after the war, but not directly because the war, it was complicated, Tarija, etc.. Therefore we can't use the black line, reserved for the "after war and because of war boundary". I used red. Your "Many colaborators" map also makes a diference between the Chile-Peru-Bolivia boundary (black line and no line) and the Peru-Bolivia and Bolivia-Argentina boundary (no line). Why is this method good in the collaborators-map and wrong in the GMT-map? Can you explain that?

Then increase it.: I increased the typesize of the "ARGENTINA" string and made another map. So, I did it. Accept it.

About the sources of the "Many colaborators" map File:Pacifico1879.svg:

In the description page we read:

Basado en [121]

We follow the link and find File:Borders-Bolivia-Chile-Peru-Before and after Pacfic War of 1879 SP.png and there is finally the source of the map: File:Borders_Chile_1879_and_2006.png. But there is the note:

This map is erroneus, use Image:Borders-Bolivia-Chile-Peru-Before and after Pacfic War of 1879 SP.png

So, someone shares partially my opinion about the map. But there are three other links:

1. http://grflib.svnt.com/banners/personales2.gif
2. File:Guerra-del-pacifico-01-a.svg
3. File:Departamento_moquegua_1865.JPG

The first link leads to a private website, there is no map.

The second link leads to Guerra-del-pacifico-01-a.svg. I took the colors from this map, but the map shows only the boundary before the war, and the Puna the Atacama zone is, I think, to big southwards.

The third map is the same I used to define the Peru-Bolivia Boundary before the war.

So, allegedly both maps should be the same. They are not, because the File:Pacifico1879.svg doesn't show the Rio Loa (and many others), also it doesn't show a scale.

All things considered, I repeat:

• because the showed Chile-Bolivia doesn't fit the real border after the war
• because Argentina and Bolivia has a shorter typesize
• because the map doesn't have any sources for the border Peru-Bolivia
• because it doesn't show the scale

the new map in contrast is better because:

• use the Generic Mapping Tools border database
• use the same typesize for all country names
• use File:Departamento moquegua 1865.JPG and File:MPazSoldan.1888-2xChile.djvu to set the Borders in the Puna de Atacama and Bolivia-Peru (the border in Puna de Atacama was contested and is shadowed)

I think, this issue is finished. If anyone wants, we can call a Mediation about. --Keysanger (talk) 23:09, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

SECRET

We agree that there were at least 3 Parties: Chile, Bolivia and Peru. For these three parties apply that the Treaty was secret. So, the treaty was secret. there is no doubt about that.

What about defensive?

May be that the pact was defensiv for Bolivia and Peru. But, was defensive for Chile? No, in no way. For Chile the pact was no defensive.

Every wiki editor can write "the pact was secret" because it was.

Please explain me WHY the pact was defensive for Chile, before you delete my text.

--Keysanger (talk) 22:22, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

You seem to be a little agitated, so please read this message as a peaceful statement. Surely, it is important to mention that Chile (now pay attention to this) misunderstood the "secret treaty" (You're right in saying that secret is standard) as aggresive. The word misunderstood is a key word whenever it is associated with "aggresive" as it is incorrect to mention the defensive treaty as agressive. For, the treaty was developed between Peru and Bolivia; therefore, if Peru and Bolivia viewed it as defensive, the treaty is therefore upon the eyes of the international community as legally defensive. Any other interpretation of this treaty as non-defensive is a misunderstanding, and should always be noted as such for correctness.--[|!*//MarshalN20\\*!|] (talk) 03:00, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Let's leave our interpretations aside for a moment.

If the treaty was purely defensive from the viewpoint of Peru and Bolivia then references need to be provided stating just that. On the other hand, if the treaty was seen as secretive and/or offensive by Chile, then, the same rule applies. If we end up with both claims being verifiable by reliable sources (which I think we will) then, we should present both of them.

Likeminas (talk) 13:54, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Where in the treaty said: "is offensive" to someone?

It was a defensive treaty with an aditional article that kept it secret.

Arafael (talk) 14:44, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Let me once again re-state (and re-word) what I pointed out on my past statement. There is no way that something can be two opposites at the same time. A treaty cannot be defensive and offensive at the same time. It's an illogical statement, just like saying that something can be sweet and sour at the same time (Sweet and sour chicken, which is good, can also be only one thing at a time).

As Arafael has noted, since the treaty makes no mention of an offensive action towards any particular country, nor does it make it an aggressive statement towards a normal alliance (non-defensive); and clearly only speaks about a defensive pact: The treaty is a defensive alliance. What's more, Peru's actions during the start of the war makes it even more obvious that the treaty was defensive: Peru set the defensive alliance active only when Chile declared war upon it and Bolivia (Chile was the first country to formally declare war).

As such, since the treaty is legally a "Secret defensive alliance," any other mention of it as anything different is incorrect. Therefore, if you want to include that Chile saw the treaty as offensive, it should be noted that it was a misunderstanding from Chile.--[|!*//MarshalN20\\*!|] (talk) 15:19, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Take note, though, that I agree that the misunderstanding of Chile should be noted in the article. It is important to show that Chile made the mistake of thinking the secret defensive alliance was offensive against it.--[|!*//MarshalN20\\*!|] (talk) 15:19, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Here we go again. This article seems to be doomed to go in déjàvu cycles.

Please go back to my previous post and re-read it. I thought I was quite clear. But perhaps, I'm mistaken in my assumption so me let say this as simple as I can:

That the treaty omits to name or mention a third country (i.e.; Chile) does not mean the treaty per se was not intended or directed to a third country.

Having said that, if a reliable source explicitly states that the treaty was, indeed, seen, understood or thought as offensive, aggressive or whatever other adjective you want to call it, then, we have meet Wikipedia's requirement of verifiability and it should be also included for the sake of neutrality. The exact same thing goes for the defensive claim. And please note, that omissions are by no means proof of anything.

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

In any case, I urgue all parties involved to avoid bringing their own personal opinions or theories into this discussion as they're technically worthless in terms of inclusion.

Likeminas (talk) 16:01, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

• Read in [122] Republic of Chile. Foreign Ministry. Archive 1884: "Copia Tratado de Alianza Defensiva Perú-Bolivia (1873)"
• Read in [123] Chilean newspaper : "Perú (quien intervino producto de un tratado defensivo..."

Arafael (talk) 22:31, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Those are good sources Arafael. We have positively established that the treaty was at least Defensive and Secret.

I've deleted (in bold) the unsourced part Chile acknowledging its awareness of the Bolivia-Peru alliance was offensive to Chile.

Likeminas (talk) 13:33, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Marschall wrote:

if Peru and Bolivia viewed it as defensive, the treaty is therefore upon the eyes of the international community as legally defensive

That is false. Iran says that they don't want to build the bomb. Do the international comunity believe that? Someone yes, others no. In our case Bolivia and Peru say the pact is defensive. That is a fact: they say that, the defensive character of the pact is not the fact.

Marschall wrote:

it is important to mention that Chile misunderstood the secret treaty as aggresive

That is your personal POV. You say misunderstood, correct is:

it is important to mention that Chile    understood the secret treaty as aggresive

I can see now that the problem is bigger than I supposed at the beginning of my contributions to this article. We have to begin with the finding of the facts and then write about the interpretation and consequences of the facts in the three countries. I considerer essential to describe following FACTS:

1. the business competition between Callao and Valparaiso after the independence of Peru and Chile, the Peruvian tax for ships entering Valparaiso
2. the Boundary treaty of 1866, 24°S and the 50%-50% tax, and his failure
3. the nationalization of the guano in Peru at the beginnig of the 1870s and the desolate Peruvian budget
4. the superiority of the Peruvian navy at the beginnig of the 1870s and the Mejillones incident (Quiroga-Putsch intent)
5. the Chilean order for two ironclads in UK
6. the secret alliance treaty, called defensive, the attempt to bring Argentina, the Peruvian fear that Brasil joints Chile.
7. the Boundary treaty of 1874 and the prohibition to raise the tax
8. the arrival of the first ironclad to Chile and the change in the foreign policy of Peru tending to pospone the Argentine sign of the alliance treaty
9. the Bolivian raise of Tax, the occupation of Antofagasta
10. the Peruvian attempt to stop the war and after the war, the change in the foreign policy of Peru tending to bring the Argentine sign of the alliance treaty

I will bring the references to this facts as soon as posible. If you think that there some issues needless, redundant or other needed facts, let us know.

Please, be cool, do not use so much bold in your comments.

Marschall: Who has said that Chile    understood the secret treaty as aggresive? . Where did you read that?

--Keysanger (talk) 12:22, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

• Read in [124] page 252. "Storia de lla guerra d'America fra Chilì, il Perù e la Bolivia"

lo storico chileno Barros Arana dice nella sua cosidetta Historia de la Guerra del Pacifico, che era un Trattato di alleanza offensiva e difensiva. Questo può dare una idea del modo come si interpretano e riferiscono i fatti nel Chili.

Chilean historian Barros Arana said in his book History of the Pacific War, a treaty of alliance offensive and defensive. This can give an idea of how they interpret and report the facts in Chile

Arafael (talk) 13:23, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Likeminas, how have you positively established that the treaty was at least Defensive? --Keysanger (talk) 16:17, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Fairly easy Keysanger; I clicked the realiable sources provided by Arafael and read them. I suggest you do the same.

Likeminas (talk) 16:21, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

That don't change the fact that that is what they say. --Keysanger (talk) 18:28, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Keysanger, you are writing only one POV text (Bulnes). Include all POV in order to reach NPOV. Arafael (talk) 18:46, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Keysanger;

if you took your time to read the source from the Chilean Foreign Ministry archive[125], then, we wouldn’t be having this rather unworthy and unconstructive discussion of saying "they say that", and most importantly you wouldn't be blindly reverting other people’s edits.

As far as I can tell, sources from all sides (Peru, Chile and Bolivia) seem to agree that it was Defensive.

If you claim otherwise, then, the burden of proof is now on you.

Likeminas (talk) 19:33, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Likeminas,

I don't need any proof, because I use the source of the pact. The pact says this is a defensive alliance and I corrected your contribution ("it was a defensive pact") with they called it a defensive alliance. You have to proof that the pact was defensive and you can't do it because that is, as Arfael contribution states, (lo storico chileno Barros Arana dice nella sua cosidetta Historia de la Guerra del Pacifico, che era un Trattato di alleanza offensiva e difensiva. Questo può dare una idea del modo) come si interpretano e riferiscono i fatti nel Chili. ("how they interpret")

If you say "defensive", that is a interpretation of the history, it is not a fact and if you want to publish that in english Wikipedia, you have to say "Diego says it was a defensive pact". Don't get confused with the name and the content of a idea. The Hitler-Stalin Pact was officially titled the Treaty of Non-aggression between Germany and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. In reality Hitler used the pact to prepare the Operation Barbarossa, that is, the invasion of the Soviet Union. Other example: Mission Accomplished said George W. Bush. Would you write an article and say "the mission was accomplished". No!, you would write, Bush said: Mission Accomplished.

Do you actually mean that is a proof?. For God's sake!. That is any thing but a historical study of the War of the Pacific, That is a list of documents kept in the Chilean Foreign Officce. Your Italian "proof" is a proof for me: That are interpretations of the pact, says the text.

So, I think, I have explained my reasons why I reverted your changes. I apologize for my english and request you urgently to correct it if you have time for.

Arafael,

stay cool. In my last contribution to the discussion, I put a list of issues I wanted to expand. Among others I wrote:

4. the superiority of the Peruvian navy at the beginnig of the 1870s and the Mejillones incident (Quiroga-Putsch intent)

If you think that is incorrect, then explain first why do you think so. Wich issues should be assigned to an article, that is a controversial theme. I promise you, you will ignite the war again if you try to coerce my freedom to cooperate with Wikipedia.

By the way, the superiority of the Peruvian navy at the beginnig of the 1870s and the census of Antofagasta are not controversial. You find it overall.

May I move this discussion page to archive and open a new one?. We have advanced a lot at the last days, and the discussion is exciting but my DSL-provider will go bankrupt.

--Keysanger (talk) 10:18, 3 July 2009 (UTC)