Talk:War of the Pacific

Issue 1: offensive/defensive secret Alliance

Unresolved

Despite an agreement Talk:War of the Pacific/Archive 7#Mediation of defensive/offensive issue. the current article [1] insists to presume a defensive alliance: 'The forces of Chile fought a defensive alliance of Bolivia and Peru.. That is a clear violation of the NPOV of the Wikipedia rules. --Keysanger (what?) 10:48, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

I've reviewed the whole introductory section and no "extreme nationalistic POV" exists. The section was completely re-made by the team of editors in the Guild of copy-editors. The sentence which you cite, and the section as a whole, avoids using any specific national POV. Unless you have any other concerns, please remember to remove the NPOV tag.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 15:31, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Did you read also what you agreed on Sounds good to me. Thank you Gigs.--$%MarshalN20%$ (talk) 14:15, 17 August 2009 (UTC)?. --Keysanger (what?) 16:52, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

If you really do feel that the introductory section is so "extremely nationalistic", then I suggest you discuss it in the NPOV noticeboard. Nonetheless, I once again tell you that nothing in the introductory section is either "extreme" or "nationalistic"; and you really would be wasting your time.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 18:10, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

I repeat for you the agreement:

• The treaty was officially titled defensive.
• The treaty was viewed by Chile as a menace (offensive to it).
• Professional opinion is split on whether the alliance was solely defensive or whether it was offensive and defensive.

There is no defensive alliance, there is a so-called defensive alliance that was, according to Chile, one of the reasons of the war and WP has to express that Professional opinion is split on whether the alliance was solely defensive or whether it was offensive and defensive. Best regards, --Keysanger (what?) 18:57, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Go to the NPOV noticeboard if you have an issue with the introductory section. The "agreement" you write about applies to a discussion held over the "crisis" section, which to my understanding remains untouched since the last editions and explains the perspectives of the nations involved.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 20:01, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Keysanger, read carefully what are you saying: "there is a so-called defensive alliance that was, according to Chile", that's a Chilean POV sir, why the Chilean-version of the facts is better than Peruvian and Bolivian version? In fact, the text of the treaty which form the alliance didn't do not mention the Chilean nation as a subject or reason of the alliance. The text is clear sir, your interpretation is not relevant for the article. Greetings.Cloudaoc (talk) 20:09, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Changing "a defensive alliance" to "an alliance" displays a NPOV. What one side views as defensive may be interpreted as offensive to the other. The treaty between Bolivia and Peru was also "secretive" and that could be added as well, but for sake of maintaining a neutral context, labeling it just an alliance is appropriate. Selecciones de la Vida (talk) 20:22, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Everyone, just take a minute to think before anything gets out of hand.

• First of all, if any of you really want to contest the current introductory section, I have already recommended plenty of times for you to use the NPOV noticeboard. I have also stated that it's going to be a waste of time, but it's up to you if you really want to ultimately resort to it.
• Second, the introductory section is nothing more than a summary of the whole article.
• Third, regarding the issue with the wording, it's not a matter of presenting a specific POV. In the "Crisis" section it is explained that Chile viewed the alliance as offensive, and declared war upon the Peruvian acknowledgement of its existence. The summary simply reflects the obvious: The Peru-Bolivia document was a mutual defense treaty, called upon by Bolivia upon the Chilean invasion of Antofagasta, and activated by Peru after the Chilean declaration of war. Regardless of any POV, the events which took place all conclude that the alliance was defensive; hence the summary including the term "a defensive alliance".
• Fourth, as suggested, it would certainly be appropiate to add: "Bolivia activated its secret mutual defense treaty with Peru."

There is nothing wrong about either of these things, nothing "extremely nationalistic" (which is really an exaggeration and quite an aggressive title for this section). Best of wishes.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 21:58, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

I took some time to edit the first paragraph. What do you think?

The War of the Pacific (Spanish: Guerra del Pacífico) took place in western South America from 1879 through 1883. The forces of Chile fought a defensive alliance of Bolivia and Peru. The conflict is also known as the "Saltpeter War", as disputes over mineral-rich territory were the war's prime cause. The conflict originated in a dispute between Chile and Bolivia over a 10 cent tax on the Antofagasta Nitrate & Railway Company, but Bolivia and Chile's controversy over ownership of Atacama preceded and laid foundations for the conflict. Peru entered the affair in 1879, initially attempting to mediate the dispute. When Chile invaded the Bolivian port city of Antofagasta on February 14, 1879, Bolivia sought the activation of a secret mutual defense treaty with Peru. After learning of the treaty's existence, Chile declared war on both countries on April 5, 1879, and the following day Peru activated the alliance.

The last sentence seems to be a nice summary of Chile's reaction to the treaty.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 22:23, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

I posted an arbitration request against user MarshalN20 because of his edits in the article. Best regrads, --Keysanger (what?) 15:11, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Alright, good luck with that.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 16:39, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

The discussion of the issue is in Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard#War_of_the_Pacific and will continue as soon as the "Bolivian declaration of war" is finished. --Keysanger (what?) 09:23, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Issue 2: Bolivian declaration of war

Unresolved

• However, under international law at that time neither side had actually declared war.[23][24]

It is astonishing that 2 sources are enough to write in the that there was no Bolivian declaration of war. One of the sources (a broken link) is the Peruvian newspaper "La Razon", known not for its scientific art but for his anti-Chilean resentements.

I found 15 sources that state that there was a Bolivian declaration of war and such a overwhelming opinion about the Bolivian declaration of war must be included in the text and as the common view of the historians. The no-declaration-of-war theory can also be included but as a rand view. Here the list of sources:

Extended content

William F. Sater in "Andean Tragedy", page 28 states: Two weeks after the Chilean occupation of Antofagasta, he declared that had imposed "a state of war" on Bolivia. Apparently this decree did not constitute a formal declaration of belligerence, which he announced on 18 March. "Documentary History of the Tacna-Arica dispute, University of Iowa studies in the social sciences, Vol. 8", by William Jefferson Dennis, here, page 69: On March 14 Bolivia advised representatives of foreign powers that a state of war existed with Chile. ... Godoi advised President Pinto that this move was to prevent Chile from securing armaments abroad ... "Andean Tragedy", William F. Sater, page 39:Thus, Daza's declaration of war was a godsend ..., also page 42in March he suddenly declared war on Chile "Latin America's Wars: The age of the caudillo, 1791-1899" By Robert L. Scheina, page 376: On March 18 Bolivia declared war and confiscated all Chilean property in Bolivia and under the terms of a secret treaty ..." "Wars and Peace Treaties, 1816-1991", By Erik Goldstein, page 182: As result of this action Bolivia declared war on Chile (1.March) "The history of Chile" By John Lawrence Rector, page 100: Bolivia declared war and attemted to expel all Chileans from its territory onwar.com: Bolivia then declared war on Chile and called upon Peru for help. country-data.com: Bolivia, in alliance with Peru, declared war on Chile on March 1, ...' andrewclem.com: ... , but Bolivia declared war on Chile and made known its “secret” alliance with Peru in March, ... globalsecurity.com: Bolivia, in alliance with Peru, declared war on Chile on March 1,... Encarta: Bolivia declared war and was joined by Peru, a partner in a secret alliance. "The geopolitics of security in the Americas: hemispheric denial from Monroe ..." by Martin Sicker here: and Bolivia declared war on 14 February 1879 ... "A history of Chile‎" - Page 326, by Luis Galdames, Isaac Joslin Cox - History - 1941 - 565 pages: The government of Chile refused to accede to this. Meanwhile Peru mobilized its army rapidly, Bolivia declared war against Chile, and the press of those ... "Chile and the War of the Pacific"‎ - Page 9 by William F. Sater - History - 1986 - 343 pages Two weeks after Chile occupied the disputed territory, Daza declared war. "The Bolivia-Chile-Peru dispute in the Atacama Desert" by Ronald Bruce St. John, Clive H. Schofield here: "Once Bolivia declared war on March 14 1879 ...".

Best Regards, --Keysanger (what?) 16:11, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Bolivia didn't declare war. Even the first source you present states it: "Apparently this decree did not constitute a formal declaration of belligerence, which he announced on 18 March." "Undue weight" doesn't apply here since even Daza explains that the decree he presented was not a declaration of war.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 16:45, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

You forget the 14 others, what about that?. Best Regards, --Keysanger (what?) 23:07, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

You can provide 100+ sources on the topic, but the article already presents:

1. The view that Chile saw Daza's decree as a declaration of war.
2. The view that his decree was not a declaration of war.

The only new thing you have provided which is important to note is that Daza announced, on March 18, that he did declare war. You can take it to an administrator's forum, but like in the other issue, it will lead you to nothing.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 03:19, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi MarshallN20, Keysanger seems to have provided quite a bit of support for his position here. Do you have reliable sources that also state that this decree was not a declaration of war? Generally, in situations like this, it is appropriate to note in the article that there is disagreement in the reliable sources. Alex Harvey (talk) 04:10, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I do have reliable sources for this matter. First, a quick analysis:

1. William F. Sater is used 3 times in his list, and the source contradicts itself. (P. 39) "Thus, Daza's declaration of war was a godsend". (P. 28) "Apparently this decree did not constitute a formal declaration of belligerence, which he announced on 18 March." Something is incongruent with this source; how is it possible for a decree to not be a declaration of war in Page 28, but then become a declaration of war on Page 39?
2. The Iowa source does not support Keysanger's view as, "On March 14 Bolivia advised representatives of foreign powers that a state of war existed with Chile", does not translate into "Bolivia declared war on Chile".

Please quit trying to trick users with your lists. You have been warned of this plenty of times.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 15:02, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

My proposal is to consider William F. Sater as a reliable professor of Latin American History at California State University (others [2], [3]). I am convinced that such a source is more reliable than the Peruvian newspaper "La Razon". If you have better sources, please feel free to let us know more. Best Regards, --Keysanger (what?) 15:38, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Sater is one person, not multiple persons. It's illogical to gather 3 sources from the same author and try to pass them off as different; writing: "I found 15 sources". It's also surprising that such a reliable source as Sater contradicts himself within the same book. If Daza is the author of his presidential decree, and Sater explains that Daza stated his decree was not a declaration of war; then how is it possible for a few pages later for Sater to claim the decree was a declaration of war? Sater places himself in a position in which he contrasts with Daza's opinion of his own decree.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 16:29, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

MarshalN20 Sources

Extended content

Ramiro Prudencio Lizon (Historian and Diplomat) [4]: "In order for Chile to be able to advance further north an official war declaration was necessary. And it wasn't this country but rather Bolivia the one who sent an internal decree which was afterwards interpreted as a true declaration of war. [...] Obviously, Daza had no interest in declaring war, because he knew that Bolivia was not in conditions to affront a campaign against a country much superior in belligerent resources and which counted with a powerful navy." Atilio Sivirichi, "Historia del Perú" (1932), page 193: "[Daza's decree] was skilfully interpreted by the Chilean government as a declaration of war and as a justification for its occupation of the [Bolivian coast]." William F. Sater, "Andean Tragedy", page 28: "Two weeks after the Chilean occupation of Antofagasta, he declared that Chile had imposed "a state of war" on Bolivia. Apparently this decree did not constitute a formal declaration of belligerence, which he announced on 18 March." Tommaso Caivano, "Historia de la guerra de América entre Chile, Perú y Bolivia", pages 61-62 ([5]): "[Daza's decree], as can be clearly read within it, does not do anything more than dictate a few measures relative to true the state of war in which Bolivia and Chile found themselves after the invasion of [Bolivian territory] by [Chile], and, like it textually and carefully states, "while this state of war imposed by Chile upon Bolivia", was interpreted by Chile in an extremely original manner." Mariano Felipe Paz Soldán, "Narracion Historica de la Guerra de Chile contra el Peru y Bolivia". On Page 80 he presents the Bolivian March 1st declaration and explains its nature (at no point describing it as a declaration of war). On Page 86 makes first mention of a declaration of war, this coming from Chile to both Peru and Bolivia. Text from Page 86 ([6]): "War having been declared by Chile, it needed to justify its conduct upon the neutral nations and, at a loss of good reasons founded in law and corroborated by deeds, opted for falsity, presenting a series of situations under a distortion of reality, and others completely false. [Chile] said among other things that Peru did not gesture Bolivia in time to lead it towards a good path and procede with fewer recklesness and violence in its determinations." Valentín Abecia Baldivieso, "The History of Bolivia in International Relations. Vol 2.," page 73: "But in reality no such declaration of war took place. The decree (Hilarión Daza's decree) to which this characteristic [of declaring war] is attributed only alludes that "Chile has indeed invaded the national territory", stipulating that "all commerce and communication with the Republic of Chile is cut for the duration of the war that [Chile] has promoted upon Bolivia." He later states that Chileans should vacate the country given deadlines in cases of emergency and taking action on property belonging to them. Therefore, it is not correct to attribute that Decree the characteristics of a declaration of war, because under the international law of the time, it was not. The steps taken were for security because Chile had taken Antofagasta. On April 3 the declaration of war by the Chilean Congress was approved, and by the 5th it became known throughout the press." Guillermo Cortés Lutz, "La Guerra del Pacífico: Graves Errores en la Enseñanza de la Historia y su Distorsión en los Sistemas Educativos en Chile, Perú y Bolivia" [7]: "The key moment to give the "go" on war starts in the day planned for the auction, Chilean troops, at the command of Colonel Emilio Sotomayor, occupy Antofagasta. Later comes the negative of Peru to maintain its impartiality, Manuel Prado, arguments that he has been tied by a secret pact, and with this Chile declares war on Peru and Bolivia on April 5, 1879, without ignoring the invasion manu militari, was the start of the war." Note: Cortes Lutz does not attribute March 1st decree as declaration of war, but rather states the Chilean declaration and invasion is what starts the war. Richard Gibbs, USA Envoy Extraordinary and Minister Plenipotentiary, "Message from the President of the United States" [8], pages 198-199 (March 12, 1879): "Up to the present, I have no information of a formal declaration of war having been made either by Chili or Bolivia. Chili has, by force of arms through her vessels of war, taken posession of the coast of Bolivia [...] and holds the whole coast, establishing marine, military, and civil government. [...]The only official action taken by Bolivia is a proclamation by President Daza, which is not a declaration of war. I inclose a copy of it in Spanish, taken from a Lima paper, and a translation from the South Pacific Times, of Callao." William Spence Robertson, "History of the Latin-American Nations" [9]. Page 324: "On February 14, 1879, which was the date set by Bolivia for the sale of the company's property to ensure the payment of the taxes, Chilean soldiers took possession of Antofagasta. Two weeks later Bolivia announced that in consequence a state of war existed between her and Chile. After the Peruvian government had declined to proclaim its neutrality in the struggle, Chile declared war upon Bolivia and Peru. The conflict which ensued has been designated by South Americans as the War of the Pacific." Page 345: "But the efforts of Peruvian diplomats were fruitless. After Peru had declined to proclaim her neutrality, the Chilean government--which claimed to have ben just informed of the secret treaty of alliance between Bolivia and Peru -- declared war upon the allies on April 5, 1879. Note: Robertson explains that Bolivia announced Chile began the war ("In consequence" to Chilean soldiers taking possession of Antofagasta). General Directory of Statistics, Chile Page 3: "The old enemity of Peru and the perfidious machinations of its government being thus discovered, war was inevitable, and was declared by Chile on the 4th. of April 1879." Page 6: "The present war which Chile makes against Peru and Bolivia." Note: Both statements are pretty clear. March 1st declaration isn't even mentioned. Edward D. Mansfield, "Electing to Fight: Why Emerging Democracies Go to War" [10], Page 202: "Chile's role as initiator of the War of the Pacific against Peru and Bolivia in 1879, fought over nitrate deposits, demonstrates the dangers of coalition politics in weakly institutionalized states undergoing an incomplete democratic transition." Note: March 1st decree ignored. Jack L. Snyder. Co-author to "Electing to Fight: Why Emerging Democracies Go to War." John B. Allcock, "Border and Territorial Disputes" [11], page 574: "After Bolivia had broken an agreement signed with Chile at Sucre in 1874 by placing fresh taxes on Chilean firms already exploiting nitrates in the common zone, a Chilean expeditionary force in February 1879 took possession of Antofagasta and Mejillones (on the coast) and Caracoles (inland). Chile called on Peru to proclaim its neutrality in the conflict, and, when the latter refused, declared war on both." Note: March 1st decree ignored. Benjamin Keen, "A History of Latin America" [12], page 256: "In February 1879, despite Chilean warnings that expropriation of Chilean enterprises would void the treaty of 1874, the Bolivian government ordered the confiscation carried out. On February 14, the day set for the seizure and sale of the Chilean properties, Chilean troops occupied the port of Antofagasta, encountering no resistance, and proceeded to extend Chilean control over the whole province. Totally unprepared for war, Peru made a vain effort to mediate between Chile and Bolivia. Chile, however, having learned of the secret Peruvian-Bolivian alliance, charged Peru with intolerable duplicity and declared war on both Peru and Bolivia on April 5, 1879." Note: Another source in which the March 1st decree isn't even mentioned as anything relevant to the war and Chile is presented as the declarer of war. Keith Haynes. Co-author to "A History of Latin America."

These sources are more than enough to demonstrate that Daza's decree was not a true declaration of war. Not only does Daza explain this, as sourced by Sater, but the information is backed up by historical analysis. On the other hand, the sources presented by Keysanger are merely textual parrots, merely stating that Bolivia declared war without any further analysis. It's important to mention that the article does present Chile's view about Daza's decree. However, Keysanger is trying to use the WP concept of "Undue weight" to present Chile's POV as supreme and leave the analysis of Daza's decree (including Daza's own opinion about his decree) as "minority views".--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 18:49, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Your rationale is broken because you contradict yourself: W.F.Sater, is a source for or not for a Bolivian Declaration of war?. Now you say that he is a source for NO declaration of war. Above you say that he was cited three times. What about the other two?. Do you have also reliable sources?. Best Regards, --Keysanger (what?) 21:19, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

I honestly don't understand what it is you are trying to state. I have already provided the necessary amount of sources to discard your "Undue Weight" claim.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 22:45, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi Marshal, I am inclined to agree that Keysanger has made a point here, and that it is probably too strong to have Wikipedia assert as a fact that, "under international law at that time neither side had actually declared war". That is an absolute statement. I think the statement should be attributed, i.e. "According to X, ...". When Wikipedia's voice makes an absolute statement, it should be a statement of an uncontested fact. Also I am finding it confusing that Keysanger's sources do indeed say that Bolivia declared war - not just that Chile thought Bolivia declared war. If these historians are wrong, the article doesn't help me to understand why they are wrong. I am happy to be persuaded otherwise? Also (a suggestion to both Keysanger & MarshalN20), having multiple threads open discussing multiple disputes at the same time is probably not ideal. Should we try to resolve this point first? Alex Harvey (talk) 15:47, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

That's not Keysanger's point, but rather your point Alex. Keysanger's point is that there is "Undue Weight" in the article, which is not true. The sources I have provided are from a long timespan (starting from the early 20th century all the way to the 2000's) of different historians from different nationalities (including Daza's own explanation of his decree). Your point, Alex, about the "International law" part and its status as "uncontested fact" is correct. Going back in time, I found this old consensus statement, proposed by me, in which the four users discussing this same issue at that time agreed [13]:

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)

This discussion reminded me of the existence of this consensus statment. I no idea what happened to it until now: [14]. It turns out that Keysanger massively deleted the consensus statement and sources in order to impose his POV. Strangely enough, he is trying to do the exact same thing at this point, except that now he tries to use the concept of "Undue Weight". I don't believe in history repeating itself, but this sure does seem like a case of Déjà vu. What I plan to do at this point is propose another consensus statement, which may take a few minutes.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 17:10, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

This discussion continues in Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard#War_of_the_Pacific_:_Bolivian_declaration_of_war. --Keysanger (what?) 23:39, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

And yet you keep doing exactly the opposite of what Alex suggests. *Sighs*--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 23:55, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

If I could recommend calm. I am optimistic that a compromise can be found that will satisfy both parties and also improve the article. It seems to me that both Keysanger & Marshall are making valid points so we need to find a wording that expresses both points fairly. To Marshall, the consensus statement seems to have similar problems to what is already in the article, i.e. it concludes in Wikipedia's voice that "in reality no war had yet been formally declared from either side of the conflict". Yet that statement seems to be at odds with reliable sources Keysanger has produced. The issue seems to be not just that the Chilean government interpreted Daza's decree as a declaration of war, but that some modern historians also interpret it that way. It might be an idea to consider some sort of digression in the text: "Some historians have seen the Bolivian decree as a formal declaration of war [insert evidence] while others have taken the view that a state of war did not exist until Chile declared so on [date][insert evidence]." Perhaps we can quote Daza himself on his own view, which seems fair enough. What do we think of a solution along these lines? Alex Harvey (talk) 06:38, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

My answer to this is Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard#War_of_the_Pacific_:_Bolivian_declaration_of_war here, see Of course I plead for a cite of the MarshalN20 view,.... Best regards, --Keysanger (what?) 11:23, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Okay I have read all that now. I would like to understand why Sater appears to contradict himself. He is quoted by Marshal as saying, "Two weeks after the Chilean occupation of Antofagasta, [Daza] declared that Chile had imposed "a state of war" on Bolivia. Apparently this decree did not constitute a formal declaration of belligerence, which he announced on 18 March." He says, "Apparently". Why does he use that word? Is it possible he is revising his earlier opinion? Alex Harvey (talk) 14:40, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm still in the process of creating a new consensus statement. I refuse to participate in the NPOV noticeboard discussion simultaneously to this one in the talk page (as long as Alex remains as a third-view on the discussion). Regarding Sater's contradiction, I honestly do not understand what Sater is trying to state. What I do know is that "Chile and the War of the Pacific" was published in 1986, and "Andean Tragedy" was published in 2007. Perhaps he is indeed revising his previous statements, because the usage of the word "apparently" is of discovery (i.e., I thought that chicken salad was perfect but, apparently, it was a fish salad).--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 15:27, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

::::::At 18:49, on 22 July 2011 (UTC)MarshalN20 wrote [15]:

Two weeks after the Chilean occupation of Antofagasta, he declared that Chile had imposed "a state of war" on Bolivia. Apparently this decree did not constitute a formal declaration of belligerence, which he announced on 18 March."

But the original text of Sater says:

Two weeks after the Chilean occupation of Antofagasta, he declared that had imposed "a state of war" on Bolivia. Apparently this decree did not constitute a formal declaration of belligerence, which he announced on 18 March.

Alex, do you note the difference?. MarshalN20 has inserted "Chile" into Saters words to confuse and fool the reader. Unbelievable. Best Regards, --Keysanger (what?) 16:44, 24 July 2011 (UTC) This contrib was deleted by the author on 24 July 2011, 16:45. --Best regards, Keysanger (what?) 12:33, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

What's unbelievable is that you keep demonstrating me your lack of good faith. Alex, I'm trying my best to believe Keysanger has good intentions, but the above statement (in which he is the one distorting Sater's statement) and his desire of including the term "so-called" in order to incite trouble ([16] and [17]), really make it hard. Using his own logic, Keysanger purposely deleted the mention of "Chile" in order to trick both you and me into agreeing with him. Please stop trying to trick us Keysanger.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 16:55, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

I deleted my contribution 1 minute later as I discovered that there are two versions of Sater's statement. It seems now that my version is wrong, but I can't say now how ocurred the mistake. Sorry for the problem. Best Regards, --Keysanger (what?) 17:04, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

This isn't the first time you are doing something tricky. For the sake of continuing the discussion little option exists than to continue believing you're making "mistakes", but it all ultimately hurts your own credibility. Please be more careful.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 17:13, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

If you think that I am tricking you, feel free to call a admin. Best Regards, --Keysanger (what?) 17:18, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

I revisited a link of former discussions and found:

Under [18], page 69 and 70, a book of the Iowa University which includes official statements of the governments, letters , etc of that time.

In page 69 and 70 the book, under the title "N°28. Bolivian War Circular, March 31, 1879" states following:

Introduction and source- On March 14 Bolivia advised representatives of foreign powers that a state of war existed with Chile. The announcement was issued from Lima.

...

Meanwhile over the Andes at La Paz, and it may be said here parenthetically that a single telegraph line might have prevented this war, Daza issued letters of marque against Chile on March 26, and a formal war circular on March 31. Taken from British State Papers, 1879-80, Vol. LXXI, pp 926-933.

...

There can't be any doubt that the British government was informed about the Bolivian declaration of war. Also the Chilean governmaent understand the Bolivian declaration of war as a declaration of war (see Gonzalo Bulnes).

Best Regards, --Keysanger (what?) 18:53, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

You're forgetting that Chile invaded Antofagasta on February 14. Antofagasta had never belonged to Chile prior to their invasion and forceful removal of Bolivian authorities. That is what Daza is refering to when he explains that "Chile provoked the war upon Bolivia". That is what the historians I have sourced explain. Even Sater explains how "Apparently this decree did not constitute a formal declaration of belligerence". The point now is to come up with a new NPOV text which exhibits both points of view.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 19:10, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Discussing the Sater source

Okay I am glad we agree that Sater is correctly quoted by Marshal and that Sater's more recent view (2007) is that the Daza decree was "apparently" not a formal declaration of war. Can someone with access to Sater 2007 expand on this statement in context? Does he give a foot note? Any other clues as to why he appears to revise his earlier position here? Alex Harvey (talk) 02:02, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Here is the preview of the text from Google Books ([19]). No footnotes, but I can provide the paragraph:

La Paz did not supinely accept the loss of its seacoast: some eight to ten thousand of its residents massed in one of the capital's main plazas demanding weapons so they could expel the Chilean filibusters who had seized their coast. In truth, these enthusiastic but utterly unprepared volunteers could do nothing. Even President Hilarion Daza had to limit himself to symbolic gestures: two weeks after the Chilean occupation of Antofagasta, he declared that Chile had imposed "a state of war" on Bolivia. Apparently this decree did not constitute a formal declaration of belligerence, which he announced on 18 March. Only on 5 April did Santiago reciprocate, plunging South America's west coast into what became known as the War of the Pacific, a conflict which lasted until 1884.

I have no idea what Sater has on his mind or why he seems to have changed his earlier statements. He refers to the decree as a "symbolic gesture", and now claims that Santiago's reciprocation "plunged" South America into the war. I'm sure Sater is a reliable source, considering his PhD, but something is definitely wrong with his process of thought. I am almost done writing the consensus statement, but I am still unsure as to how Sater should be cited. Any ideas?--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 04:27, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

I suppose we could send an email to Sater and ask him what he meant and he may respond helpfully with other sources. It's quite possible that he has simply changed his mind. Aside from Sater are there any other Western historians who support the position that the Daza decree was not a declaration of war? Alex Harvey (talk) 06:50, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

He apparently works at California State University, but I am not sure how to contact him. From past experience, we should avoid contacting his publisher since they don't bother replying to questions not related to buying the book. However, professors are generally happy to provide their thoughts about their books. Regarding other western historians, all of my sources are from western historians. Unless I am wrong, Ramiro Prudencio Lizon died a few years ago. Google Books is limited in their source material, but I think that all of the sources shown demonstrate that the "Undue Weight" claim is false (plenty of evidence exists in favor of both points of view), and that both "theories" have strong supporters depending on their interpretation.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 12:44, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

I repeat here my contribution in Alex's talk page:

Sater wrote more than one book about this theme, he is a profesor of Latin American History in the USA and probably one of the best informed person in the world about the War of the Pacific, so I cited him as often as needed. I don't understand you, Alex, why do you find unfair and tricky to use Sater three times, one from page 28 and another from page 39 of "Andean Tragedy" and other from page 9 of "Chile and the War of the Pacific"‎. Yourself have problems to understand the first citation of Sater (page 28), that I cited wrong, then you can use the second (page 39) and the thrird ones (page 9) to see that Sater without any doubt asserts that there was a Bolivian declaration of war. Keysanger, the bottom line is I did not think you intended to deceive here, and I said the same I think to Marshal. It gave me the impression that 15 historians supported your view whereas it turned out to be 12. In retrospect I can see there may have been other reasons for you to emphasise Sater so sorry about that. Alex Harvey (talk) 13:21, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Sater's sentence: "Two weeks after the Chilean occupation of Antofagasta, he declared that Chile had imposed "a state of war" on Bolivia. Apparently this decree did not constitute a formal declaration of belligerence, which he announced on 18 March." is for me very clear.

The word Apparently in Sater's sentence means "for some persons" and to avoid any ambiguity he says at the end "which he announced on 18 March". We remember that the Chilean occupation of Antofagasta occured on 14 February, so the first "declaration" was two weeks later, we say end of February or begin March. The second declaration was also on 18 March.

If MarshallN20 still has problems with the first citation of Sater, then he should use the second one from a second book and the third one from a third book. I don't see there ANY problem in Sater's stance.

It doesn't matter whether the author of the NYT is a Chinese or a Canadian, it is matter only that it is published by the NYT one of the most consulted newspapers of the world opposite to MarshallN20 "La Razón".--Keysanger (what?) 11:19, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

I repeat. If you have any doubt about Sater's opinion in the first citation, what do you think of the second or the third?. --Keysanger (what?) 11:19, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

I will respond in a numbered format in order to maintain a small amount of order.

1. Sater is one person. You claimed that you had "found 15 sources", when that was not the case. It would be like me holding 3 dollars, but counting them long enough to claim I have 6 dollars. It's not right and ends up tricking/confusing whoever is reading into believing something that is not true.
2. Sater's "Chile and the War of the Pacific" was published in 1986, and "Andean Tragedy" was published in 2007. There is a 21 year gap in Sater's work. During this time he seems to have changed his stance on the Bolivian decree of March 1st. Anything he wrote in 2007 is more up-to-date, more accurate, than whatever he wrote in 1986. History changes partly because historians change their point of view as they become more educated on the subject.
3. The word "apparently" in no way or form can be equated with the term "for some persons".
4. Authorship is important in all works. Companies such as the NYT generally state: "The opinions expressed in this diary do not reflect the newspaper's stance...bla bla bla". Having the opinion of a "Chilean correspondant" is unreliable considering we don't know who really is this person (job, role, etc.).
5. "La Razon" is a reliable newspaper, but what matters is the article written by the historian.

I hope this answers your questions.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 13:12, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I may have misunderstood that all three quotes came from the same book, which makes the situation more puzzling. The word "apparently" actually does not mean "for some persons" as you say; but rather "it appears that; as far as one knows; seemingly". If by "apparently" he meant "according to the Bolivians", then it would be a case of badly chosen words. More likely, I think, it suggests that he is uncertain himself on this point. I believe it would be a good solution to email Sater; I am sure he would be only too happy to clarify this for us. In fact I'll do this if you like. The real question, though, is does Marshal have other Western historians to support his position? Alex Harvey (talk) 13:21, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

We discussed the matter in Alex's talk page. I do have some more Western historians as sources. These do not say whether the decree was or was not a declaration of war, but rather their analysis of the war completely discards the March 1st decree. They inadvertedly disregard it as unimportant and, instead, focus on the Chilean invasion of Antofagasta and Chile's later declaration of war as the primary offenses.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 23:12, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Please, write this sources here. here is the discussion not in Alex talk page. Best Regards, --Keysanger (what?) 16:38, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

The sources are on the list...--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 16:42, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Error on the dates

Many of the sources presented by Keysanger throw dates randomly, and others simply don't even bother to mention them. Daza's decree was made on March 1st (this is an established fact), and yet many of Keysanger's sources say that it was on March 18, February 14, and March 14. Some sources don't even provide a date. Considering these sources provide erroneous dates, I consider their usage as reference to "Daza's declaration of war" as incorrect.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 23:12, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

MarshalN20's Proposal

Alright, this took a while and hopefully it will be something everyone can agree with to end this part of the discussion. I used Keysanger's sources from the list which mentioned the March 1 decree as a declaration of war, and did not use those which failed to mention it (i.e., those sources that simply stated, "Bolivia declared war", without explaining when or how). I ended up presenting 3 points of view: The first is that of the pro-war group; the second is the anti-war group; the last is the don't-care group (which don't attribute anything important to the March 1st decree). It needs better source formatting, but I'm sure that's not a problem since the material is cited with enough information. Without further words, here it is:

Daza's decree is a controversial subject in the history of the conflict. One side of the historical analysis affirms that the decree signifies a Bolivian declaration of war against Chile. Another side argues that the decree was not a declaration of war, but rather it was a security measure taken in response to the Chilean invasion of Antofagasta. This side further argues that Chile purposely interpreted Daza's decree as a declaration of war in order to justify their invasion of Bolivia. Other historians completely avoid mentioning Daza's decree, and instead focus on other causes for the start of the conflict. Bolivian historian Ramiro Prudencio Lizon states that "Daza had no interest in declaring war, because he knew that Bolivia was not in conditions to affront a campaign against a country much superior in belligerent resources and which counted with a powerful navy." On March 12, Richard Gibbs, United States Ambassador to Peru, wrote a letter to his government explaining that neither Bolivia or Chile had declared war up to that point. According to American historian William F. Sater, on March 18, Hilarión Daza clarified that his March 1st decree was not a declaration of war.

Any suggestions are welcome.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 00:43, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

@ Marshal, I am optimistic that this is a move in the right direction but I have some concerns. (1) all the footnotes suggest the weight on each point is proportional to the number of footnotes. I don't believe this truly achieves "balance". (2) I am not sure I like reducing the history to two opposing "sides". I think it could say more about Wikipedia's content dispute in the talk page than it does about history. (3) it is heavily weighted to telling Bolivia-Peru's side of the story while Chile's argument is presented as a bald assertion. Obviously the writer (you) agrees with Bolivia-Peru's version. (4) I don't think Sater can be used as a source at all while his Andean Tragedy seems to waver on the point. Whichever version he is presented as supporting, it would be cherry picking - unless he has clarified his view somewhere. Alex Harvey (talk) 14:02, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the comment Alex. I'll reply with numbers:

1. I don't really understand what you mean by the "weight on each point is proportional to the number of footnotes". What I had in mind was mixing all the references for each point into a single one, but in the reference section splitting them up. This is something one of the evaluators of the Peru national football team suggested to me when he was reviewing the article for GA status. Look at references 17, 21, and 120 in the football article. This would avoid having all those numbers in the paragraph. What do you think?
2. I can't think of another way to present the concept that two opposing views exist. Maybe I'm out of creativity. Any suggestions?
3. In terms of balance, I was hoping Keysanger could provide a quote from a Chilean historian/diplomat/foreign relations expert?
4. I avoided mentioning Sater's opinion on the subject since we do not know what his stance truly is. Hence, I used him to reference Daza's opinion about his own decree. I think my sentence is pretty accurate and in no way can be misinterpreted as expressing Sater's opinion on the subject. That is, unless a better option exists?

This paragraph would go right after the paragraph which states Daza's decree. I'm sure the paragraph can be improved, but hopefully it will work as a foundation. --MarshalN20 | ^Talk 15:18, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Alright. Here is another attempt at consensus:

Daza's decree is a controversial subject in the history of the conflict. The Chilean government interpreted the decree as a declaration of war, and the majority of historians have since then debated the legitimacy of Chile's claim. Historians Erick Goldstein, Hans-Joachim König, and Philipp Reclam are among those who claim that Daza's March 1st decree is a war declaration retaliating to Chile's invasion of Antofagasta. On the other hand, historians Tommaso Caivano, William Sater, and Valentin Abecia Baldivieso are among those who claim that Daza's March 1st decree was only a security measure given Chile's armed invasion and not a declaration of war. Historian Ramiro Prudencion Lizon explains that Chile required an official declaration of war to advance further north into the Bolivian coast; which is why, according to historians Mariano Felipe Paz Soldán and Atilio Sivirichi, Chile purposely distorted Daza's decree to justify its occupation of Bolivia's coast. Nonetheless, a small number of historians, including William Sater and Robert Scheina, believe that Bolivia declared war on March 18; and another group believes the war declaration came in March 14.

I am not sure if it would be good to include the information explaining that the March 18th information is, according to Lavalle (primary source) and Basadre (secondary source), the copy of the March 1st declaration which circulated Chile. As always, any help is appreciated.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 01:31, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Review of joint achievements

It is time to recapitulate.

MarshalN20's sources

I see that MarshalN20 is running out of sources:

Extended content

YRamiro Prudencio Lizon A Bolivian Historian and Diplomat YAtilio Sivirichi A Peruvian Historian NWilliam F. Sater, "Andean Tragedy", page 28: is wrong cited NTommaso Caivano, A primary source NMariano Felipe Paz Soldán, Peruvian Primary source YValentín Abecia Baldivieso,A Bolivian historian NGuillermo Cortés Lutz, says nothing for or against the dec of war NRichard Gibbs, USA Envoy Extraordinary and Minister Plenipotentiary, "Message from the President of the United States" A primary source NWilliam Spence Robertson, says that "later Bolivia announced that in consequence a state of war existed between her and Chile" NGeneral Directory of Statistics, Chile a primary source that says nothing for or against the Bdow NEdward D. Mansfield, "Electing to Fight: Why Emerging Democracies Go to War" says nothing for or against a Bdow NJack L. Snyder. Co-author to "Electing to Fight: Why Emerging Democracies Go to War." says nothing for or against a Bdow NJohn B. Allcock, "Border and Territorial Disputes" says nothing for or against a Bdow NBenjamin Keen, "A History of Latin America" says nothing for or against a Bdow. NKeith Haynes. Co-author to "A History of Latin America."says nothing for or against a Bdow

MarshalN20 could bring 2 Bolivians and 1 Peruvian historians for this new theory and two sources for the Bolivian declaration of war (Sater and William Spence Robertson).

Keysanger's sources

What have we to verify the Bolivian declaration of war:

Extended content

Y William F. Sater in "Andean Tragedy", states: page 28 Two weeks after the Chilean occupation of Antofagasta, he declared that Chile had imposed "a state of war" on Bolivia. Apparently this decree did not constitute a formal declaration of belligerence, which he announced on 18 March. page 39 Thus, Daza's declaration of war was a godsend ..., also page 42in March he suddenly declared war on Chile page 129 Pinto refused, perhaps believing that Daza would accept a return to the "status quo ante". But Daza did not: two weeks after the Chilean occupation of Antofagasta, Bolivia declared war Y "Chile and the War of the Pacific"‎ - Page 9 by William F. Sater - History - 1986 - 343 pages Two weeks after Chile occupied the disputed territory, Daza declared war. Y "Documentary History of the Tacna-Arica dispute, University of Iowa studies in the social sciences, Vol. 8", by William Jefferson Dennis, here, page 69: On March 14 Bolivia advised representatives of foreign powers that a state of war existed with Chile. ... Godoi advised President Pinto that this move was to prevent Chile from securing armaments abroad ... Meanwhile over the Andes at La Paz, and it may be said here parenthetically that a single telegraph line might have prevented this war, Daza issued letters of marque against Chile on March 26, and a formal war circular on March 31. Taken from British State Papers, 1879-80, Vol. LXXI, pp 926-933. Y "Latin America's Wars: The age of the caudillo, 1791-1899" By Robert L. Scheina, page 376: On March 18 Bolivia declared war and confiscated all Chilean property in Bolivia and under the terms of a secret treaty ..." Y "Wars and Peace Treaties, 1816-1991", By Erik Goldstein, page 182: As result of this action Bolivia declared war on Chile (1.March) Y "The history of Chile" By John Lawrence Rector, page 100: Bolivia declared war and attemted to expel all Chileans from its territory Y onwar.com: Bolivia then declared war on Chile and called upon Peru for help. Y country-data.com: Bolivia, in alliance with Peru, declared war on Chile on March 1, ...' Y andrewclem.com: ... , but Bolivia declared war on Chile and made known its “secret” alliance with Peru in March, ... Y globalsecurity.com: Bolivia, in alliance with Peru, declared war on Chile on March 1,... Y Encarta: Bolivia declared war and was joined by Peru, a partner in a secret alliance. Y "The geopolitics of security in the Americas: hemispheric denial from Monroe ..." by Martin Sicker here: and Bolivia declared war on 14 February 1879 ... Y "A history of Chile‎" - Page 326, by Luis Galdames, Isaac Joslin Cox - History - 1941 - 565 pages: The government of Chile refused to accede to this. Meanwhile Peru mobilized its army rapidly, Bolivia declared war against Chile, and the press of those ... Y "The Bolivia-Chile-Peru dispute in the Atacama Desert" by Ronald Bruce St. John, Clive H. Schofield here: "Once Bolivia declared war on March 14 1879 ...". Y"The Ten Cents War", Bruce W. Farcau, Praeger Publishers, 2000, page 42: News of the landings reached La Paz whithin few days, but, for reason never quite made clear, Daza withheld any proclamations for another week, allegedlly to avoid putting a damper on the Carnival celebrations then underway, but on 27 February, the Bolivian legislature issued the authorization for a declaration of war, although the formal declaration would not be forthcomming until 14 March. Further, on Page 43 B.W. Farcau states: Lavalle departed Lima on 22 February, well before the Bolivian declaration of war, but nothing irreversible was to occur for some time... and inpage 44 he continues: ...Word have now reached Santiago of the Bolivian declaration of war, and, ... Y"Kleine Geschichte Lateinamerikas", by Hans-Joachim König, Philipp Reclam, Stuttgart, 2009, ISBN 978-3-315-017062-5, page 479: Chilenische Einheiten besetzten die bolivianischen Hafenstadt Antofagasta, in der nur 5% der Bevölkerung bolivianisch waren. Daraufhin erklärte Bolivian am 1. März 1879 den Krieg an. YJosé Antonio Lavalle, "Mi mision en Chile en 1879", Edición, prólogo y notas por Félix Denegri Luna , Lima, Peru, 1979, Instituto de Estudios Histórico-Marítimos del Perú. (José Antonio Lavalle was the Peruvian envoy to Chile to mediate during the crisis and Félix Denegri Luna was a well known Peruvian historian [20]) In the Prolog to the book of the Peruvian envoy to Chile to "mediate" during the crisis, Félix Denegri Luna explains in aprox. 65 pages the situation of the three countries. He wrote in: page XLIII El 1° de marzo Bolivia entró en guerra con Chile page LVIII La declaración esta fechada en La Paz el 1° de Marzo. page LXII Lavalle se indignó cuando se enteró que Daza había declarado la guerra a Chile. La noticia llegada a Santiago dos semanas después ... The text of envoy Lavalle is a primary source, but allow me a transgression of this important rule of Wikipedia only in order to get a vivid view of the situation at that time. Lavalle says in page 84: En la mañana del 18 recibí una carta verbal* del señor ministro Fierro [Chilean Minister for Foreign Affairs] pidiéndome que le viese a las 12 del día siguiente, para tener una conferencia relativa al objeto de mi mision, y pocos momentos después llegó a mis manos un suplemento del "Diario Oficial", en el que se anunciaba que el ministro de relaciones exteriores había recibido desde Tacna, por medio de correos, y desde Caldera por el telegráfo, el decreto expedido por el presidente de Bolivia en 1° del mes de marzo, que seguía, en el cual establecíase por parte de esa nación el "casus belli" con Chile, con todos sus efectos y consequencias YJorge Besadre, "Historia de la Republica, La guerra con Chile", Pero las pasiones excitadas no se enfriaron. El dí­a 18 de marzo se abrió un nuevo perí­odo de la misión Lavalle. Ese dí­a fue recibido en Santiago, desde Tacna por correo y desde Caldera por telégrafo el decreto expedido por el Presidente Daza y notificado al cuerpo diplomático el 14 de marzo estableciendo el casus belli con Chile con todos sus efectos y consecuencias, junto con otros decretos de ruptura de relaciones mientras durara la guerra y de expulsión y confiscación de bienes chilenos en Bolivia. Esto ocurrió a pesar de que Quiones y Doria Medina acordaron el 5 de marzo las bases para la mediación peruana. La versión chilena fue que Bolivia quiso impedir que Chile se armara. En realidad, Daza buscó la forma de malograr la misión Lavalle. Una vez más la legación peruana en La Paz había fallado porque, según el tratado secreto, un acto de esta especie debía haberse hecho previo acuerdo de las partes. Al no estar declarada la guerra entre Chile y Bolivia, Chile no podía pedir al Perú que se mantuviera neutral. Porque la había declarado Bolivia, la exigencia chilena de neutralidad peruana era inevitable. La declaración boliviana de guerra era (dice el historiador chileno Bulnes) un palo atravesado en las ruedas del carro empujado por Lavalle. La situación que se habí­a ido agravando mes a mes y semana a semana, se complicaba ahora día a dí­a, hora a hora, minuto a minuto. El Perú se veí­a envuelto con rapidez creciente en un conflicto tremendo, sin tiempo casi para presentar la acción conciliatoria propia y sin haber buscado una acción análoga de Argentina, Estados Unidos o las potencias europeas Tranlation by Keysanger: ...on 18 March was the begin of a new phase in Lavalle's mission. This day was received in Santiago from Tacna by post and from Caldera by telegram Daza's decree that notified on 14 March all diplomats about the casus belli against Chile with all efects and consequences, together with other decrees of rupture of relations as long as the war lasted and of expulsion of Chileans and confiscation of his goods. The Chilean version saw that Bolivia ['s declaration of war] aimed to impede the purchase of weapons to Chile. In reality, Daza intended to eliminate Lavalle's mission. Once again the Peruvian legation in La Paz [Bolivia] failed because in accordance with the treaty such act [declaration of war] should have been done in agreement between both [Peru and Bolivia]. As long as no state of war between Chile and Bolivia existed , Chile couldn't require neutrality from Peru. Since Bolivia declared the war on Chile, the Chilean request of Peruvian neutrality was inevitable. The Bolivian declaration of war on Chile was (as stated by Chilean historian Bulnes) a traverse fault through the wheel of Lavalle's handkart. The situation worsened month to month ... YHerbert Millington, American Diplomacy and the War of the Pacific, Copyright by Columbia University Press, 1948, Published in Great Britain and India by Goeffrey Cumberlege, Oxford University Press, London and Bombay, page 25: "The Bolivian war manifesto was issued on February 27, 1879, …"(added by --Keysanger (what?) 11:48, 4 August 2011 (UTC)) YClaude Michel Cluny, "Atacama, Ensayo sobre la guerra del Pacifico, 1879-1883", 2008, 480 pages, ISBN 978-968-16-7982-8, Original title of the French book: "Atacama, Essay sur la guerre du Pacifique, 1879-1883": page 441, "1° de Marzo, Bolivia declara la guerra a Chile" (Added by --Best regards, Keysanger (what?) 06:56, 11 August 2011 (UTC)) YGerhard Lang, "Boliviens Streben nach freiem Zugang zum Meer", Hamburger Gesellschaft für Völkerrecht und Auswärtige Politik, Herausgegeben von Prof. Dr. Herbert Krüger, Band 6, Hamburg 1966, Seite 25: Die peruanisch-chilenischen Verhandlungen waren noch im Gange. Da gab der bolivianische Sonderbevollmächtigte in Perú, Außenminister Serapio Reyes Ortiz, der den Auftrag hatte, von der peruanischen Regierung gemäß Artikel 3 des Büdnisvertrages von 1873 die Anerkennung des casus foederis zu erwirken, namens seiner Regierung dem bei der peruanischen Regierung akkreditierten diplomatischen Korps am 14. März durch Zirkularnote die vom 1. März datierte Kriegserklärung Boliviens an Chile(Fußnote 54) bekannt. Diese ungewöhnliche Schritt, eine Kriegserklärung auf diese Weise publik zu machen, erklärt sich daraus, daß zu jener Zeit nur wenige Länder in La Paz vertreten waren und die Nachrichtenübermittlung von dort wesentlich längere Zeit benötigte als von Lima aus. Mit der rechtzeitigen Bekanntgabe der Kriegserklärung aber sollten die Auslieferung von Kriegsschiffen, die bei europäischen Werften im Auftrag gegeben worden waren, und weitere Waffenlieferungen an Chile verhindert werden. Fußnote 54: State papers, Bd. 71, S. 926 Translation: The Peruvian-Chilean negotiations were still in progress when, on his government's behalf, the Bolivian special plenipotentiary in Peru, foreign minister Serapio Reyes Ortiz, who was commissioned to obtain the Peruvian government's recognition of casus foederis according to article 3 of the 1873 treaty of alliance, announced Bolivia's declaration of war on Chile(footnote 54), dated March 1, by circular note to the diplomatic Corps accredited to Peru. This unusual step, to make public a declaration of war in this fashion, can be explained by the fact that only few countries were represented in La Paz at the time, and communications from there took significantly longer than from Lima. The timely announcement of the declaration of war, however, was supposed to impede the deployment of war ships that had been commissioned to European shipyards, as well as the delivery of weapons to Chile. Footnote 54: State papers, Bd. 71, p. 926 (added by --Best regards, Keysanger (what?) 12:05, 18 August 2011 (UTC)) YWaldemar Hummer, "Revindikation von historischen Gebietstiteln in Lateinamerika - Die Forderung Boliviens auf Zugang zum Meer", Herausgegeben im Auftrag der "Gesellschaft zur Forderung der Forschungen zur Europäischen und Vergleichende Rechtsgeschichte" an der Karl-Franzens-Universität Graz von o. Univ.-Prof. Dr. Bertold Sutter, Heft 16, Graz, 1983, p. 24: Angesichts dieser Invasion blieb der bolivianischen Regierung nichts anders übrig, als Chile am 1. März 1879 den Krieg zu erklären sowie Peru um Einhaltung des am ... (added by --Best regards, Keysanger (what?) 12:05, 18 August 2011 (UTC))

Review

Please, read carefuly my sources again, I added 3 new sources (Besadre, Farcau, Lavalle/Negri) and compacted Sater's 2 citations of one book to only one source. What can we say about the sources that sustain the Bolivian declaration of war:

1. there are 18 (all no-Chileans and all no-primary sources) books that assert the Bolivian declaration of war
2. under the historians that state it, are two well-respected Peruvian historians (Basadre and F. Denegri L.), and the most famous historians in the English language about the military history of Latin America (W.F.Sater, B.W. Farcau and Sheina)
3. There are problem to fix the date of the Bolivian declaration of war. La Paz was not conected to the telegraph and the news used to be tranported by "chasquis" (running man) in 6 days from La Paz to Tacna and then from Tacna to the world by ship (Caldera, Chile) or telegraph (Lima). Moreover, in the first week after the Chilean occupation of Antofagasta there was no response of the Bolivian government. Why?. We don't know.
4. There were 2 Bolivian declarations, the first one was on 1. March and the second on 14 or 18 March 1879. Why?, is the 14. March the date of the arrival to Lima and 18. March the date of the arrival to Santiago?. We don't know.
5. Both Sater and Farcau point to the fact that there two Bdows, a "simple" and a more "formal" declaration but they don't coincide in the dates of the 2. declaration.
6. Sater, Farcau and Basadre have the Bolivian declaration of war as basis for his thoughts about the war, his causes, course and consequences. Therefore it is imposible to doubt about the Bolivian declaration of war whitout to change completly the actual written history of the war of the pacific.
7. The Bolivian declaration of war is asserted by the majority of the historian.

And what to do with the 4 historians that asserts there was no declaration at all?. It depends. It depends of how much original research we want to do. I refuse to participate in a "WP research group War of the Pacific". It would be very interesting but I don't have so much time and we could not publish the results in the English Wikipedia. Anyway, they are a footnote in the history and that should remain also in Wikipedia.

I abstain to made a concrete proposal, my English is still not perfect. Best regards, --Keysanger (what?) 11:23, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Discussion

Okay... a few things... definitely Marshal should remove primary sources from his list. Keysanger, your sources (viii) and (x) are the same source. And I don't regard Sater as a reliable source while he appears to make contradictory statements. Are you able to declare the nationality of all your sources just as you've revealed the nationality of Marshal's? Alex Harvey (talk) 12:59, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Okay I have realised why I was confused about the Sater quote. While he says the March 5 decree was not a formal declaration of war, he says Daza declared war on March 18th. I had been assuming this was after the Chilean declaration but now I see that Chile declared war on 5th April. So I withdraw this, Sater is definitely consistent throughout with Keysanger's position. Alex Harvey (talk) 14:15, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Alex, Bolivia did'nt declare war to Chile in March 18, 1879; I don't have any single reference of such statement in any other book apart from Sater, in fact the only document taken by the Chilean Goverment as a "Declaration of War is the Decree of March 1, 1879, and this document says (in Spanish):

Considerando:

Que el Gobierno de Chile ha invadido de hecho el territorio nacional, sin observar las reglas del Derecho de Gentes, ni las prácticas de los pueblos civilizados, expulsando violentamente a las autoridades y nacionales recidentes en el departamento de Cobija.

Que el Gobierno de Bolivia se encuentra en el deber de dictar medidas enérgicas que la gravedad de la situación, sin apartarse, no obstante, de los principios que consagra el derecho público de las naciones.

Decreto:

Articulo 1° Queda cortado todo comercio y comunicación con la República de Chile mientras dure la guerra que ha promovido a Bolivia.
Articulo 2° Los chilenos residentes en el territorio boliviano serán obligados a desocuparlo en el término de dies dias, contados desde la notificación que se les hiciere por la autoridad pública nacional, pudiendo llevar consigo sus papeles privados, su equipaje y articulos de menaje mayor.
Articulo 3° La expulsión ordenada en el artículo anterior sólo podrá ser suspendida en el término que fuera estrictamente indispensable por causa de enfermedad u otro impedimento grave, a juicio de la autoridad.
Articulo 4° Se procederá por las autoridades respectivas al embargo bélico de las propiedades muebles e inmuebles pertenecientes a los súbditos chilenos, en el territorio de la República, con excepción de los objetos designados en el articulo 2°.

Las empresas mineras pertenecientes a chilenos o en las que hubiere accionistas de esa nacionalidad podrán continuar su giro, a cargo de un administrador nombrado por la autoridad o con la intervención de un representante del fisco, según creyera aquélla más conveniente.
Articulo 5° Los productos netos de las empresas mineras perteneciente a chilenos o a las acciones correspondientes a los mismos, serán empozados en el tesoro nacional.
Articulo 6° El embargo mandado por este Decreto se convertirá en consfiscación definitiva, siempre que el género de las hostilidades que ejerzan las fuerzas chilenas requieran una retaliación enérgica de parte de Bolivia.

Articulo 7° Se desconoce toda transferencia de intereses chilenos, hecha con posterioridad al 8 de noviembre último, en cuya fecha el Gobierno chileno declaró nulo el tratado de 1874, debiendo considerarse como simulado todo contrato que se hubiere pactado a este respecto.

El ministro de Gobierno y Relaciones Exteriores cuidará de la publicación y ejecución de este Decreto.

Fuente: Historia de Las Fronteras de Chile, page 65-66

As you can read, the text doesn't include the sentence: "La Républica de Bolivia declara la guerra a Chile", in fact, the decree establish than its instructions are only valid until the state-of-war persist between Bolivia and Chile, and this measures can be reverted or become permanent in function to the escalation of the hostilities, clearly initiated by the Chilean Republic. This decree cannot be interpretated as a "war declaration", that is the Chilean version of the fact since the war and here in Wikipedia we have the duty to show the fact as they really was, not sustain a lie initiated more than a hundred years ago. Greetings. --Cloudaoc (talk) 15:39, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

I will reply with four points:

1. Wikipedia has a strict policy regarding Primary Source (Read WP:PRIMARY). All of you can read it, so I won't post it here. I am using all of my primary sources correctly, quoting them directly word-by-word. An excerpt from the policy: "A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements that any educated person, with access to the source but without specialist knowledge, will be able to verify are supported by the source. For example, an article about a novel may cite passages to describe the plot, but any interpretation needs a secondary source." At no point am I "interpreting" the primary sources. Therefore, Alex and Keysanger, I will not remove any of these sources from the list.
2. Alex, please read the dates. Daza's decree was on March 1st of 1879 (01/05/1879). The base argument is that Bolivia declared war on Chile on March 1st. However, several of Keysanger's sources provide different dates, or no dates at all. If Keysanger wants to prove that March 1st is when Daza declared war, it's only logical that his sources explicitly state: "On March 1st, Daza/Bolivia declared war." If they don't, then they are not favoring his position at all. Otherwise Keysanger must come up with a different proposal of when Bolivia declared war.
3. Sater is not consistent with Keysanger. He clearly states that the March 1st decree was "apparently not a declaration of war". That's exactly the same thing my sources state. Did Bolivia declare war on a later date? Possibly, I am not contesting that possibility.
4. My argument is that nothing important (no declaration of war) happened on March 1st. My sources, ix to xv, all mention the Chilean declaration of war of April 5, 1879. These sources completely ignore the March 1st date, and instead focus on other causes for the start of war. Hence, they cannot be discarded.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 15:48, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

In the end, what does this all end up in? Nothing. I have already made a proposal paragraph, but Keysanger ignores it. Instead of trying to reach consensus, he is still trying to fight against my sources. He still wants to impose his POV on the article.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 15:48, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Analyzing Daza's March 1st declaration of war sources of Keysanger

Extended content

N William F. Sater in "Andean Tragedy", states: Clearly states that March 1st was "apparently not a declaration of war". N "Chile and the War of the Pacific"‎ by William F. Sater: "Andean Tragedy" is his most recent work. Unless "Chile and War of the Pacific" has anything relevant that "Andean Tragedy" doesn't have, this source is useless. N William Jefferson Dennis "Documentary History of the Tacna-Arica dispute, University of Iowa studies in the social sciences, Vol. 8": Bolivian territory had been invaded by Chile, therefore Bolivia was in a state of war. Being in a state of war does not equal "declaring war". For example, the USA didn't declare war on Vietnam, and yet the Vietnamese were in a state of war. N "Latin America's Wars: The age of the caudillo, 1791-1899" By Robert L. Scheina: March 18? Right month, wrong day. Y "Wars and Peace Treaties, 1816-1991", By Erik Goldstein, page 182: As result of this action Bolivia declared war on Chile (1.March) N "The history of Chile" By John Lawrence Rector: When did Bolivia declare war? No date. N onwar.com: Again, no date. Y country-data.com: Bolivia, in alliance with Peru, declared war on Chile on March 1', ... N andrewclem.com: Right month, no day. Y globalsecurity.com: Bolivia, in alliance with Peru, declared war on Chile on March 1 N Encarta: No date N "The geopolitics of security in the Americas: hemispheric denial from Monroe ..." by Martin Sicker: February 14? This source is completely off-date. N "A history of Chile‎" - Page 326, by Luis Galdames, Isaac Joslin Cox - History - 1941 - 565 pages: No date. N "The Bolivia-Chile-Peru dispute in the Atacama Desert" by Ronald Bruce St. John, Clive H. Schofield: March 14? Right month, wrong day. N "The Ten Cents War", Bruce W. Farcau, Praeger Publishers, 2000, page 42: Nothing on the March 1st decree. Y"Kleine Geschichte Lateinamerikas", by Hans-Joachim König, Philipp Reclam, Stuttgart, 2009, ISBN 978-3-315-017062-5, page 479: Chilenische Einheiten besetzten die bolivianischen Hafenstadt Antofagasta, in der nur 5% der Bevölkerung bolivianisch waren. Daraufhin erklärte Bolivian am 1. März 1879 den Krieg an. YJosé Antonio Lavalle, "Mi mision en Chile en 1879", Edición, prólogo y notas por Félix Denegri Luna , Lima, Peru, 1979, Instituto de Estudios Histórico-Marítimos del Perú. (José Antonio Lavalle was the Peruvian envoy to Chile to mediate during the crisis and Félix Denegri Luna was a well known Peruvian historian [21]) In the Prolog to the book of the Peruvian envoy to Chile to "mediate" during the crisis, Félix Denegri Luna explains in aprox. 65 pages the situation of the three countries. He wrote in: page XLIII El 1° de marzo Bolivia entró en guerra con Chile page LVIII La declaración esta fechada en La Paz el 1° de Marzo. page LXII Lavalle se indignó cuando se enteró que Daza había declarado la guerra a Chile. La noticia llegada a Santiago dos semanas después ... The text of envoy Lavalle is a primary source, but allow me a transgression of this important rule of Wikipedia only in order to get a vivid view of the situation at that time. Lavalle says in page 84: En la mañana del 18 recibí una carta verbal* del señor ministro Fierro [Chilean Minister for Foreign Affairs] pidiéndome que le viese a las 12 del día siguiente, para tener una conferencia relativa al objeto de mi mision, y pocos momentos después llegó a mis manos un suplemento del "Diario Oficial", en el que se anunciaba que el ministro de relaciones exteriores había recibido desde Tacna, por medio de correos, y desde Caldera por el telegráfo, el decreto expedido por el presidente de Bolivia en 1° del mes de marzo, que seguía, en el cual establecíase por parte de esa nación el "casus belli" con Chile, con todos sus efectos y consequencias NJorge Basadre, "Historia de la Republica, La guerra con Chile": Nothing on the March 1st decree.

Keysanger really needs to get his position straight. Obviously, this is a controversial subject; but it gets even more confusing when the correct dates are not attributed. If he wants to claim that Daza's March 1st decree was a declaration of war, then he must provide sources that demonstrate that on March 1st Daza declared war. From my analysis, only 5 of his sources provide this detail.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 15:48, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Globalsecurity.com, and country-data.com cannot be considered as a reliable sources, because both pages only repeat the content of other sources, without checking its reliability; in fact, both websites don't cite any source at all. Greetings.--Cloudaoc (talk) 18:12, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Globalsecurity.com is reliable. It's not the "most reliable" source available (there are better...such as the historians), but it should not be discarded. Regarding Country-data.com, it also seems reliable since, according to the foreword [22], the information was "prepared by the Federal Research Division of the Library of Congress." The only problem with both is that they don't really cite their sources. They only provide a bibliography, which is just a general list of books which influenced their work...but we don't know which exact part of the book they used. Still, that only confirms that these are not the best of sources, but they are reliable.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 18:46, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

The globalsecurity.com and country-data.com are both the same source i.e. word for word say the same thing so one of them at least must be removed from the list. Alex Harvey (talk) 01:38, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Marshal et al., Keysanger has written above There were 2 Bolivian declarations, the first one was on 1st March and the second on 14th or 18th March 1879. Why? The 14th March is the date of the arrival to Lima and 18th March the date of the arrival to Santiago? We don't know. So even if the 1st March was less than a formal declaration of war historians seem to agree that there was a formal declaration on 14th or 18th. It's not obvious to me why there would be confusion but there obviously is. For the most part I think Keysanger's analysis of the sources presented so far is fair and accurate. On primary sources, it is true that we are allowed to use them to some extent but the issue at hand here is what the reliable secondary sources say. When determining appropriate weight we only care about the weight as found in reliable secondary sources. Alex Harvey (talk) 01:48, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Keysanger's sources must be divided according to the dates. That way we will be able to see which historians favor each date. Also, Keysanger's explanation about the "date of arrival to Lima" is his own opinion on the subject (unless he provides a source which explains this matter). His analysis is anything but fair or accurate. All of my alleged "primary sources", are also secondary sources (with the exception being the US Ambassador). Caivano and Soldan, for example, are historians and in their books (which you can access through the links I provided in my list) they reference their material with primary sources. Moreover, their information is supported by both Sater and Lizon (both of them explain that the March 1 decree was not a declaration of war).--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 02:27, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Something to note, regarding the dates, is that by this point the telegraph existed. Peru and Chile had telegraph lines which connected each other, hence why Peru declared casus foederis of the Alliance a mere day after Chile declared war. It's funny how Keysanger tries to claim that it would take 4 days for information from Lima to reach Santiago. When important events, such as war, were declared, the South American governments were notified rather quickly. The "Chasqui" were from the days of the Inca Empire.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 03:06, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

As Keysanger said, we are not supposed to do original research so he's right that it's not his job to explain why there are various dates in the sources for a BDoW. As I said at my talk page if the March 1 decree was not a BDoW then that's fine, but the article needs to add something like, "However, on 14th or 18th March[footnote could explain disagreement], Daza made a formal declaration of war[cite]." It can't present a version of history stating that Chile was the first declare war if in fact a majority of historians believe Chile's April 5 declaration was a reciprocation of an earlier Bolivian declaration of war. Alex Harvey (talk) 03:48, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

It doesn't make sense to "study" Daza's article. It is original research. For example, what says the article 1. of Daza's decree?:

Articulo 1° Queda cortado todo comercio y comunicación con la República de Chile mientras dure la guerra que ha promovido a Bolivia.

Which war did the decree mean?. Either Chile had declared the war or Bolivia declared the war. Chile still didn't declare the war. Chile did it on 5. April after Peru refused to declare neutrality. Do we want to discuss that?. Not me. I refuse to discuss about primary sources. This is the task of historians not of WP editors.

Moreover, if you don't like the first Bolivian declaration of war then use the second one. Don't try to be more intelligent or to know more about the war that Sater, Sheina, Farcau, Besadre and Denegri Luna!.

I think the true intention behind the currrent wording of the article is given by Cloudac:

This decree cannot be interpretated as a "war declaration", that is the Chilean version of the fact since the war and here in Wikipedia we have the duty to show the fact as they really was, not sustain a lie initiated more than a hundred years ago.

They want to re-interpret a fact and and to show the fact as they really was and to terminate with the lie of Sater, Sheina, Farcau, Besadre and Denegri Luna.

Best regards, --Keysanger (what?) 11:57, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

So what happened on March 14/18? Sater asserts that Bolivia made a formal declaration of war. Has the text of this declaration of war been preserved? Alex Harvey (talk) 13:05, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Alex, one of Keysanger's sources explains what happened on March 18. The one by Felix Denegri Luna, using a direct quote from Lavalle (the Peruvian diplomat in Santiago during this time): (In Spanish) En la mañana del 18 recibí una carta verbal* del señor ministro Fierro [Chilean Minister for Foreign Affairs] pidiéndome que le viese a las 12 del día siguiente, para tener una conferencia relativa al objeto de mi mision, y pocos momentos después llegó a mis manos un suplemento del "Diario Oficial", en el que se anunciaba que el ministro de relaciones exteriores había recibido desde Tacna, por medio de correos, y desde Caldera por el telegráfo, el decreto expedido por el presidente de Bolivia en 1° del mes de marzo, que seguía, en el cual establecíase por parte de esa nación el "casus belli" con Chile, con todos sus efectos y consequencias.

Translation into English: "In the morning of the [March] 18th, I received a verbal letter from minister Fierro [Chilean Minister of Foreign Affairs] asking me to see him at 12:00 the next day, in order to have a conference relating the objective of my mission, and a few moments later came to my hands a supplement of the "Diario Oficial" ["Official Diary"], in which it was announced that the Minister of Foreign Relations had received from Tacna, through correspondence, and from Caldera through telegraph, the decree made by Bolivia's president on March 1st, in which it established from that nation the "casus beli" with Chile, with all its effects and consequences."

Alex, you ask "What happened on March 14/18?" The answer, according to Keysanger's source, is that Chile became aware of the March 1st decree. Only Sater claims there was a "formal declaration", while Scheina claims that "on March 18 Bolivia declared war and confiscated all Chilean property." The problem is that Bolivia confiscated Chilean property on March 1st, so is Scheina also refering to the March 1st decree? Now do you fully understand why the dates are so important?--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 15:26, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

It's hard to believe that Sater and others would agree with this analysis and still maintain that Bolivia formally declared war on 18th March. Keysanger? Alex Harvey (talk) 07:30, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Please allow me to add that my USA ambassador primary source (Richard Gibbs), also mentions how the March 1st decree was published on March 18 (South Pacific Times). Sater is the only historian I know who claims that a "formal" declaration of war took place on March 18, so I don't see who are the "others"? Scheina states that "on March 18 Bolivia declared war and confiscated all Chilean property in Bolivia," but the only mention of property confiscation took place in the March 1st decree. Jorge Basadre uses the exact wording as Lavalle, attributing March 18 as the date the Daza's decree arrived in Chile through mail and telegraph. At no point does Basadre claim that Bolivia declared war on March 18. Therefore, at most only Sater and Scheina talk about war on the 18th.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 14:48, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

It is not only hard to believe that MarshalN20 knows more about the war then Profesor W. F. Sater. His efforts are useless. I cite Wikipedia:No original research:

This page in a nutshell: Wikipedia does not publish original thought: all material in Wikipedia must be attributable to a reliable, published source. Articles may not contain any new analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position not clearly advanced by the sources.

MarshallN20's divagations not only are a new analisys or synthesis of published materials, they contradict them. Best regards, --Keysanger (what?) 15:19, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

I am not placing myself on a position where "I know more than Sater". However, you seem to think that his word is final and that everyone should bow down to him. So far, Sater has: (1) Agreed that the March 1st decree was not a declaration of war and (2) Is the only historian who claims that Bolivia "formally declared war" on March 18.

1. What other historians aside from Sater and Scheina attribute a declaration of war to March 18?
2. I am using your own source (from Felix Denegri Luna). At all times I use direct quotes from the primary sources. No "analysis" or "synthesis". All the primary sources clearly explain that, on March 18, the March 1st decree was published in Santiago.

Oh, and you still haven't answered Alex's question as to what, according to you, happened on March 18. Stop trying to evade the central argument.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 15:33, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Marshal in that we need to know more about March 18 than we seem to so far in order to write the article properly. From the sources I've seen so far, a justified wording would be, "According to W.F. Sater, Bolivia made a formal declaration of war on March 18". If you want the article to state as a fact that Bolivia formally declared war on March 18 then we need more evidence. Alex Harvey (talk) 08:30, 31 July 2011 (UTC) I've read Keysanger's sources again and I see the picture clearer. I think he is right and that without further evidence something along the lines of his wording should go in. Alex Harvey (talk) 16:32, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

"Bolivia declared war...but we are not really sure when" is by no means a clear solution to this controversial topic. The March 1 decree is the most discussed (majority) in both sides of the argument; it's also the one which the Chilean government attributes as a declaration of war. The March 14/18 dates are minority views, with no documented evidence of a declaration of war; the only explanation is provided by Lavalle and Basadre, which claim this is when the March 1 decree is published in Chile. That's what is known from these sources and that's what should be placed in the article to achieve the NPOV.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 17:28, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Marshal, the reason I changed my view is that I carefully re-read Keysanger's sources. They include: (i) Sater "Two weeks after the Chilean occupation of Antofagasta, he declared that Chile had imposed "a state of war" on Bolivia. Apparently this decree did not constitute a formal declaration of belligerence, which he announced on 18 March"; (iii) William Jefferson Dennis "On March 14 Bolivia advised representatives of foreign powers that a state of war existed with Chile"; (iv) Robert L. Scheina "On March 18 Bolivia declared war and confiscated all Chilean property in Bolivia and under the terms of a secret treaty ..."; (vii) Martin Sicker "and Bolivia declared war on 14 February 1879" ('February' is probably a typo?); (xiv) Ronald Bruce St. John et al "Once Bolivia declared war on March 14 ..."; (xv) Bruce W. Farcau "... the formal declaration would not be forthcomming until 14 March." (xviii) Jorge Besadre, "El dí­a 18 de marzo se abrió un nuevo perí­odo de la misión Lavalle. Ese dí­a fue recibido en Santiago, desde Tacna por correo y desde Caldera por telégrafo el decreto expedido por el Presidente Daza y notificado al cuerpo diplomático el 14 de marzo estableciendo el casus belli con Chile con todos sus efectos y consecuencias, junto con otros decretos de ruptura de relaciones mientras durara la guerra y de expulsión y confiscación de bienes chilenos en Bolivia." It seems to me that these sources are saying not just that Chile became aware of the March 1 decree on March 14, but that on this day Bolivia made further decrees, and also advised foreign powers that a state of war now existed. That seems to be the mainstream view. Moreover, you can't claim that sources which assert that Bolivia declared war but don't mention a date (e.g. Encarta) don't support Keysanger's position, because they do. What appears to be a minority view is the view that Bolivia never declared war at all. Without any support for this view from non Bolivian sources I believe this should be treated as a minority view. Alex Harvey (talk) 03:56, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the explanation. However, I would like to make note of two things: (1) The term "state of war existed" does not equal a Bolivian declaration of war. According to Bolivia, Chile imposed a state of war upon them when they invaded their territory. That's what they advised to foreign representatives, according to the sources. (2) Lutz, Mansfield, Allcock, and Keen are just a few of the Western historians which disregard any March date as relevant to the course of events; how should we deal with these sources which attribute Chile as the primary aggressor and not Bolivia? Best of wishes.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 04:15, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Proposal

We have the same problem like editors of the death of Salvador Allende, John Kennedy, Osama Bin Laden, etc. There is little or no evidence about the circumtances of their death but all serious historians say they are death. There is no reason to say, "John Kennedy is probably alive because we don't know how many snipers killed him". In the same way, there is no reason to write "Author XYZ says Kennedy is death". He is death, all authors say it, they differ in the circumtances of his death.

So lets us say what we know, and abstain to make a digression.

I propound for:

"Lede":

In the middle of March Daza declared war and Chile soon learned that Peru and Bolivia had a secret alliance. These revelations resulted in a Chilean declaration of war on Peru and Bolivia after Peru refused to declare neutrality.

for "Crisis":

On February 27 Bolivian legislature issued an autorization for a declaration of war. On March 1, 1879, Daza issued a decree which prohibited all commerce and communications with Chile "while the state-of-war provoked upon Bolivia lasts", provided Chileans ten days to leave Bolivian territory, unless gravely ill or handicapped, with their personal belongings and documentation, embargoed Chilean furniture, real property, and mining produce, allowed Chilean mining companies to continue operating under a government-appointed administrator, and provided all embargoes as temporary "unless the hostilities exercised by Chilean forces requires an energetic retalition from Bolivia". Middle of March Daza issued a formal declaration of war. Bolivia then called on Peru to activate their alliance treaty as they felt that the Chilean occupation constituted a casus foederis.

…

After the Bolivian declaration of war was known in Santiago*(ref1), Peru's envoy Lavalle recognized the existence of the secret treaty and the Chilean government asked Peru for neutrality. As the Peruvian government responded that Lima intended to honor its commitments to Bolivia, Chile declared the war to Peru and Bolivia on 5. April 1879

• (ref1)There are discrepancies between historians about the date of the declaration of war.

Best regrads, --Keysanger (what?) 13:39, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

---

I completely disagree with your proposal. You're trying to place this subject on the same level of a conspiracy theory or myth, and that is completely erroneous. Both you and I have provided several sources which discuss the matter and provide their explanations for the events which took place at this time. What has been demonstrated from these sources is that no consensus exists among historians as to whether Bolivia declared war on March 1 or not, and that a few historians (minority per Undue Weight) attribute war to the 14th or 18th. The purpose of Wikipedia is to present all points of view in order to achieve NPOV.

• Lede (lead): It's controversial (split opinion) that Bolivia declared war on Chile on March 1st, which is what the Chilean government claimed. Therefore, it should not be included in the lead section. This goes along the same lines of the "Offensive/Defensive issue". Professional opinion is split, so it's best to avoid it in the lead.
• Crisis: This is the section where all material from the different historians should be presented.

What we know so far:

1. The majority of historians from both our source lists discuss the March 1st date (debate in favor or against);
2. Sater is the only one attributing formal BDoW on March 18, though Scheina also attributes the date to war;
3. Basadre (historian) and Lavalle (sourced from Felix Denegri Luna) explain that what happened on March 18 was that Daza's March 1st decree was published in Chile;
4. St. John and Sicker propose a March 14 date. This one has the least weight.

Based on these sources, I propose the following paragraph for the Crisis section:

Daza's decree is a controversial subject in the history of the conflict. Chile interpreted the decree as a declaration of war, a decision whose legitimacy has faced considerable debate in the historical community. Those in favor of Chile's interpretation, including Erick Goldstein and Hans-Joachim König, explain that decree was a war declaration retaliating Chile's invasion of Bolivian territory. This group suggests that Bolivia's declaration of war tried to prevent Chile from receiving further military equipment, and, according to Jorge Basadre, also tried to prevent Peru's diplomatic mediation from succeeding. Those against Chile's interpretation, including Tommaso Caivano and William F. Sater, explain that the decree was nothing more than a security measure given Chile's military invasion. This group suggests that Chile, in need of a justification for its occupation of Bolivia, purposely distorted Daza's decree. Nonetheless, some historians provide different perspectives as to when Bolivia possibly declared war. According to Bruce Farcau, Bolivia's legislature authorized a formal declaration of war on February 27. Farcau, along with Bruce St. John and Martin Sicker, claim that Bolivia then declared war on March 14. According to William Sater and Robert Scheina, Bolivia's declaration of war took place on March 18, but José Antonio de Lavalle (Peruvian senior diplomat and envoy to Chile) writes in his diary that March 18 is the date when Daza's March 1 decree was made public in Chile; a story corroborated by historian Jorge Basadre.

This proposal includes all points of view in the discussion, directly addresses the issue, and lets the reader understand the controversial nature of the situation. No "Bolivia declared war and that's that" kind of idea which Keysanger seems to support.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 16:59, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Besides a lot of original research (like "Chile interpreted…", "This group suggests…", " Those against Chile's interpretation…") primary sources (Tommaso Caivano, José Antonio de Lavalle, Mariano Felipe Paz Soldán), non-sense ( William F. Sater is cited as "the decree was nothing more than a security measure given Chile's military invasion". I don't know where did you get such idea.), fragmentary cites in one sentence ("According to Bruce Farcau, Bolivia's legislature authorized a formal declaration of war on February 27.") etc, etc, etc, the most shattering of your proposal is the undue weight.

If there is one thing we have learnt during the discussion is that the issue of the Bolivian declaration of war is a minor issue under the historians. All references, with the exception of two Bolivians and one Peruvian historian, wrote at most 1 sentence about the date of the Bolivian declaration of war. No more. It is a uninteresting theme for the history. All of them consider the Bdow as a fact. For example Basadre, a Peruvian historian, reflects on the causes, and consequenses of the Bdow but not about the date.

You want to write a botch of 1625 words with 18 references and suddenly nothing in the lede.

Moreover, your proposal eludes the most important thing almost all historians say: there was a Bolivian declaration of war.

Alex, can you make a proposal?. Best regards, --Keysanger (what?) 19:57, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

---

I do not agree with Bolivia having declared war on March 1st, which is discussed by historians in both sides. However, considering Alex wants to take into account the other sources which say Bolivia did declare war but provide no date, there is little else to be done from my part regarding this matter.

That being said, 28 sources from "western" historians declare that the War of the Pacific began with the Chilean invasion of Bolivian territory. This took place on February of 1879. Currently, the article only has the date of "1879" as the start of the war. Unless anyone wishes to challenge this point, the article should be edited accordingly. Here are the sources:

Extended content

Guillermo Cortés Lutz, The War of the Pacific: Grave Errors int he Teaching of History and its Distortion in the Education Systems in Chile, Peru and Bolivia [23]: "The key moment to give the "go" on war starts in the day planned for the auction, Chilean troops, at the command of Colonel Emilio Sotomayor, occupy Antofagasta. Later comes the negative of Peru to maintain its impartiality, Manuel Prado, argues that he has been tied by a secret pact, and with this Chile declares war on Peru and Bolivia on April 5, 1879, without ignoring the invasion manu militari, which was the start of the war." Edward D. Mansfield and Jack L. Snyder, "Electing to Fight: Why Emerging Democracies Go to War" [24], Page 202: "Chile's role as initiator of the War of the Pacific against Peru and Bolivia in 1879, fought over nitrate deposits, demonstrates the dangers of coalition politics in weakly institutionalized states undergoing an incomplete democratic transition." Guillermo I. Castillo-Feliú, Culture and customs of Chile [25], Page 49: "The conflict began in February 1 879, when Chile occupied the port city of Antofagasta." John Robert Victor Prescott and Gillian Doreen Triggs, International frontiers and boundaries: law, politics and geography - Page 97: "Chile started the War of the Pacific that lasted from 1879-1884." William Edmundson, A history of the British presence in Chile: from Bloody Mary to Charles, Page 159: "The Company refused to pay, and the Bolivian government threatened confiscation. Then the war broke out. In February 1879, a small Chilean military force took over the port of Antofagasta and then assumed control of the coastal settlements." The World Book Encyclopedia [26]: "The War of the Pacific began as a quarrel between Bolivia and Chile over control of certain Bolivian nitrate deposits. As a result of the dispute, Chile invaded Bolivia in 1879, marking the start of the war." Harry Adès, The Rough Guide to South America, Page 214: "Chilean forces began the War of the Pacific early next year, occupying the entire Bolivian coastline." Jeremy Black, War in the Nineteenth Century, Page 139: "Chile took the initiative and landed an army at Antofagasta in February 1879, advancing, after the sinking of the main Peruvian warship that October, to overrun the Bolivian Pacific coastline and then to press on to invade southern Peru." Seth Fletcher, Bottled Lightning: Superbatteries, Electric Cars, and the New Lithium Economy, Page 184: "Chile responded by sending five hundred troops to occupy Antofagasta, and the war began." Lars Schoultz, Beneath the United States: a history of U.S. policy toward Latin America, Page 91: "The war begun in early 1879, when Chile seized the Bolivian province of Antofagasta." Clements Robert Markahm, The war between Peru and Chile, 1879-1882, pages 88-89: "The Chilian Government commenced hostile operations as soon as the news from Antofagasta arrived, and seized upon the Bolivian ports of Antofagasta, Cobija, and Tocapilla; the invading troops at the same time marching into the interior, and beginning war by bloodshed at Calama." Josephus Nelson Larned, The New Larned History for Ready Reference, Reading and Research, page 1635: "Chile was, naturally, well aware of the wealth which lay so close to her own doors, and to possess herself thereof, and thus rehabilitate her national fortunes, she addressed herself to war. The occasion for war was easily found. Bolivia was first attacked, a difficulty which arose at her port of Antofagasta, with respect to her enforcement of a tax upon some nitrate works carried on by a Chilean company, affording a good pretext." Frederick Pike, The Modern History of Peru, page 142: "Chile dispatched an amphibious force to occupy Antofagasta and the War of the Pacific had begun." Eric W. Cox, Why enduring rivalries do--or don't--end, "The conflict that would lead to the War of the Pacific began when Chile began encroachments onto Bolivian territory, including the seizure of Bolivia's only ports, Antofagasta, Cobija and Tocapilla, in 1878." Emily Hatchwell, et al., Travellers survival kit: South America: "Chile was so keen to exploit these that it extended mining operations northwards into Bolivia and Peru, and in 1879 launched an all-out invasion. Thus began the War of the Pacific." Donald Marquand Dozer, Latin America: an interpretive history: "On the date of the announced sale Chilean troops entered Antofagasta, occupied the Chilean properties, and raised the Chilean flag. Thus began the so-called "War of the Pacific," which was to result in a great enhancement of Chile." James Read, The Rough Guide to Bolivia: "Early the next year Chilean forces began the War of the Pacific, occupying the entire Bolivian coastline - where the population was in any case already two-thirds Chilean - and then invading Peru, which was allied to Bolivia." Joseph O'Grady, How the Irish Became Americans: "In February, 1879 Chile started the War of the Pacific to control certain nitrate deposits."

In other words, Chile started the War of the Pacific. Best regards.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 20:07, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the sources MarshallN20, let us continue to discuss about the Bolivian declaration of war. Best regards, --Keysanger (what?) 20:39, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

This is part of the Bolivian declaration of war discussion. Considering most historians attribute Chile's invasion of Antofagasta as the start of the war of the Pacific, and Bolivia's "declaration of war" as a response to Chile's invasion, then there exists an order of how things should be presented in the lead and how they should be changed within the article. Currently, the article is written in such a way where the start of the war is attributed to the Chilean declaration of war on April 5; which should be fixed based on the information provided by 28 reliable sources. Best of wishes.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 21:36, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Nobody doubts that Chile took the initiative of the military operations. But we are discussing now about the diplomatic side of the conflict, in this concrete case the Bolivian declaration of war. Let us finish that question. --Keysanger (what?) 21:45, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

It's not about the initiative of the military operations. The sources explicit state that Chile started the war'. Regardless of the Chilean or Bolivian DoWs, the War of the Pacific began on February 14, 1879, when Chile invaded Antofagasta. In either case, Chile is the primary aggressor. Best of wishes.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 21:58, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Conclusions: Bolivia DoW

It seems most sources agree that Bolivia declared war in March. The problem is that, for every single date, a contrasting explanation is provided:

• March 1: One side argues pro-war, the other side argues that Chile, with all intents and purposes, claimed it was a DoW (when it wasn't).
• March 14: Some historians argue pro-war, but others explain that what happened here was Bolivia making a "War circular". Not sure if that's the correct English translation, but it's definition is that of telling foreign powers a state of war exists between two nations. In Bolivia's case, they told Europeans and the US that war existed between Bolivia and Chile. However, this is not a declaration of war, much less a "formal" one.
• March 18: Some historians argue pro-war, but Basadre/Lavalle explain that what happened on this date was that the March 1st decree was published on Santiago (Chile).

I am willing to write another consensus proposal based on these points, but I would like to know (from Keysanger mainly) whether he agrees or disagrees with these points. Also, any suggestions as to how this may be included are welcome.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 13:10, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

I tend to agree with Keysanger throughout here. There is a minor inconsistency on the dates in the sources but this likely follows from disinterest than true disagreement. I feel that a simple narrative like Keysanger's is appropriate and discussion of various confusions could probably occur in a footnote. The important point is that nearly all sources make a simple statement of a simple fact that Bolivia declared war. If we want to simply avoid the issue we could also just say nothing about "Bolivia declared war" and simply say that on March 14 Bolivia announced that a state of war existed between herself & Chile. I think what is most important here is that we don't manufacture a controversy in the mind of the reader that may not really exist. Alex Harvey (talk) 01:15, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

The March 14 date is the only one which is undisputed, so I agree with your proposal. In the footnote we can discuss the other dates. In this case, what should we do about the mention for Daza's March 1 decree?--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 02:40, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree also. Aley, please, write the proposal. I am sure you have understood the core of the question. --Keysanger (what?) 10:03, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

I'll try, although I suspect there are many fine details of the history I haven't understood:

On February 27 the Bolivian legislature issued the authorization for a declaration of war, although it was not immediately announced. Instead, on March 1, Daza issued a decree which prohibited all commerce and communications with Chile "while the state-of-war provoked upon Bolivia lasts", provided Chileans ten days to leave Bolivian territory unless gravely ill or handicapped, embargoed Chilean furniture, property, and mining produce, allowed Chilean mining companies to continue operating under a government-appointed administrator, and provided all embargoes as temporary "unless the hostilities exercised by Chilean forces requires an energetic retaliation from Bolivia". Then on March 14, Daza announced to representatives of foreign powers that a state of war now existed between herself and Chile. Bolivia then called on Peru to activate the alliance treaty, arguing that the Chile's invasion constituted a casus foederis. Chile, meanwhile, called on Peru to remain neutral.

I don't see any need to say anything else about the March 1 decree. Alex Harvey (talk) 12:27, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree your proposal. Can we write the lede and the Lavalle-mission in "Crisis" right now?. Keysanger (what?) 13:52, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

I disagree; why not? the March 1st Decree is explicit about the actions taken by the Bolivian goverment after the Chilean invasion of Antofagasta, this information is important for the context and latter events of the war. Greetings.Cloudaoc (talk) 14:34, 3 August 2011 (UTC) To Alex, sorry, but my original text was somehow cutted or lost when I posted. I'll clarify it as soon as remembered the original answer (but I think is not longer necessary). Greetings.--Cloudaoc (talk) 21:05, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Two points I disagree with:

1. How many historians mention the February 27 date? Could Keysanger provide more sources for it, because I really do not think that one source is legitimate enough to claim that the Bolivian legislature did something on February 27.
2. Chile "called on Peru to remain neutral" after Peru "revealed" (I will argue later that Chile already knew) the existence of the Mutual Defense treaty during the Lavalle mission.

The rest is, good. I like how you only mention what exactly happened and not what the authors assume happened. Best of wishes.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 14:31, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Regarding the Feb 27 date, I am led to believe the source is a reliable historian, and also a Peruvian. I would also think that anything done by the Bolivian legislature would be recorded - even if it was 150 years ago? - so I'd be surprised to find that a historian was wrong. I guess my question should be, is there really any reason to doubt this as a fact? That said, again, it's probably not all that important in the scheme of things. To Cloudaoc, I don't understand what you are saying. Could you clarify? Alex Harvey (talk) 12:07, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Bruce Farcau is not Peruvian (at least not that I know of). For me, Farcau's claim raises the WP:REDFLAG problem. Out of all historians listed, Farcau is the only one who mentions anything about the Bolivian legislature on February 27. As you mention, if anything done by the Bolivian legislature over 150 years ago should still be on record, then why is Farcau the only one who knows about it? Was William Sater's "Andean Tragedy", published in 2007, purposely ignorant of the Bolivian legislature's decision? Were historians for 150 years unaware of the Bolivian legislature's decision? Too many Red Flags rise at this point and time and, if Keysanger cannot find more sources certifying this view, then it should not be written as a commonly accepted fact. Note: Other than this point and the other, I have no problem with your proposal; and this would place a good end to the discussion.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 14:53, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Farcau call it "authorization from legislature", Jefferson [27] call it "general war manifesto" and probably he took the names from its (primary) source: Senate Executive Documents, 47th Congress, 1st Session Vol. IV, Doc 79, p. 201. Also Herbert Millington in his work American Diplomacy and the War of the Pacific, Copyright by Columbia University Press, 1948, Published in Great Britain and India by Goeffrey Cumberlege, Oxford University Press, London and Bombay, asserts in page 25: "The Bolivian war manifesto was issued on February 27, 1879, …" (his primary sources are the correspondence between US-Minister in Bolivia Pettis to US-Secretary of State Evarts, June 6, 1879). We shouldn't forget that Bolivia was goberned by a dictator after a coup d'etat and the legislature was only an ornament of Daza.

I would suggest to use "Bolivian war manifesto" instead of "authorization from legislature".

Regarding the "secret", yes, there are historians that assume some level of Chilean knowledge. On the other hand it is very dificult to demostrate that a person knows X. For example Peruvian envoy Lavalle was member of the highest society of Lima, member of the Parlament and Peruvian embassador in Europa but he asserted that he didn't know until 22 March 1879 (Lavalle, 19):Era la primera idea que tenia yo de la existencia de semejante pacto!. Dictator Daza was informed only in Dec 1878 about the secret treaty (Daza que aun no conocia el texto y la trascendencia del tratado…", José de la Riva-Agüero y Osma, cited in Denegri, XLII).

I would agree something like "Some Chilean politicians probably got wind from the treaty before the crisis".

--Best regards, Keysanger (what?) 09:46, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

That would be:

On February 27 was issued in La Paz the general war manifesto with the authorization for a declaration of war, although it was not immediately announced. Instead, on March 1, Daza issued a decree which prohibited all commerce and communications with Chile "while the state-of-war provoked upon Bolivia lasts", provided Chileans ten days to leave Bolivian territory unless gravely ill or handicapped, embargoed Chilean furniture, property, and mining produce, allowed Chilean mining companies to continue operating under a government-appointed administrator, and provided all embargoes as temporary "unless the hostilities exercised by Chilean forces requires an energetic retaliation from Bolivia". Then on March 14, Bolivia announced to representatives of foreign powers that a state of war now existed between herself and Chile and called on Peru to activate the alliance treaty, arguing that the Chile's invasion constituted a "casus foederis". Chile, meanwhile, called on Peru to remain neutral.

Best regards, Keysanger (what?) 10:55, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

If the "general war manifesto" contains a DoW against Chile, this was never announced or published because instead Daza issued the March 1 decree, therefore, the article cannot affirm than general war manifesto "was not immediately announced" because it was never announced, unless the general war manifesto contains the same declarations than the March 1 decree. And what was exactly declared in this manifesto? Do you have a facsimil copy or transcription of this one, or is just a reference? Greetings. --Cloudaoc (talk) 14:02, 5 August 2011 (UTC) Keysanger the "general war manifesto" is not other than the widely know "Proclama del Corvo" (Corvo Speech), published in February 27 in the Bolivian newspaper "El Comercio", which was archived by the Bolivian Senate, not issued by this, and this speech do not contain any declaration of war, in fact, the Millington text do not affirm in any part than this manifesto was in fact a DoW. Do you have a transcription of the Farcau text about this issue? Because is necessary confirm than both sources are talking about the same document. And even more the Millington text contains in its page 70, the formal war circular issued by the Bolivian Minister of Foreign Affairs, which sustain the initial Bolivian affirmation than exists an state-of-war with Chile, just like the state-of-war between Peru and Ecuador in the Cenepa War. Can you explain or sustain your initial affirmation further? Greetings.--Cloudaoc (talk) 14:26, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

I will only note a few things...

1. Farcau remains the only one stating anything about the "Bolivian legislature" doing something on February 27. Please provide additional sources to confirm whether Farcau is correct. If you cannot provide the information, then it cannot be placed as an accepted fact.
2. William Jefferson Dennis writes (Page 66): "[Daza] published his proclamations February 25 and 27." Further down he provides the text in English. Jefferson Dennis does not support Farcau's claim that the "Bolivian legislature" proclaimed anything or issued anything on February 27.
3. I investigated what Cloudaoc presented and found it 100% accurate. The text of February 27 was not a "Bolivian general war manifesto", but rather yet another one of Daza's proclamations. Name of the proclamation: Proclama del Corvo (Corvo is a type of curved knife).

According to Chilean diplomat and historian Emilio Ruiz-Tagle Orrego [28] (Published 1992): "In effect, on February 27, Daza made public a proclamation in which he energetically denounced the Chilean "agression", made by "peoples depraved by misery and vice, who comitt murders with the corvo knife".

This web [29] (in Spanish) has the "Corvo Proclamation" as well, dated February 27 and proclaimed by Hilarion Daza (Not "Bolivia" or the "Bolivian legislature").

• Regarding the "secret" part of the treaty, this is a point I would like to further discuss on its own.

I would agree to the following paragraph...

On February 27, Daza issued a proclamation which informed Bolivians about the invasion and called for patriotic support against the invaders. Later, on March 1, he issued a decree which prohibited all commerce and communications with Chile "while the state-of-war provoked upon Bolivia lasts", provided Chileans ten days to leave Bolivian territory unless gravely ill or handicapped, embargoed Chilean furniture, property, and mining produce, allowed Chilean mining companies to continue operating under a government-appointed administrator, and provided all embargoes as temporary "unless the hostilities exercised by Chilean forces requires an energetic retaliation from Bolivia". Then on March 14, Bolivia announced to representatives of foreign powers in Lima that a state of war now existed between herself and Chile; and called on Peru to activate the alliance treaty, arguing that the Chile's invasion constituted a casus foederis.

That is all.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 17:23, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Y I´ll agree with this proposal. Greetings.Cloudaoc (talk) 19:50, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

(continue)

The proposal eludes to say what the historians write: the 1. March Bolivian declaration of war. Whatever occured on 1. March, Chile, Perú and, crucial for Wikipedia, the historians called it a "declaration of war". If we sidestep the 1. March Bolivian declaration of war then we have to sidestep the 5. April Chilean declaration of war and also the the 6. April Peruvian declaration of war. We will bark up the wrong tree. --Best regards, Keysanger (what?) 15:58, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Except for the first sentence, the rest of the proposal is what Alex proposed word-by-word (which you openly agreed just a few lines above). The March 1 decree is not "crucial" to any aspect of the conflict. (1) Chile "declared war" when Peru refused to "declare neutrality". (2) Peru declared war only when Chile declared war first. The March 1st decree didn't do anything important at all; it's just one out of a series of decrees/proclamations which Daza made following the Chilean invasion of Bolivia. Hence, there is no need to include it on the lead either.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 16:19, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

I propouse:

On February 27 the Bolivian legislature issued the authorization for a declaration of war, although it was not immediately announced. Instead, on March 1, Daza issued a declaration of war on Chile and prohibited all commerce and communications with Chile "while the state-of-war provoked upon Bolivia lasts", provided Chileans ten days to leave Bolivian territory unless gravely ill or handicapped, embargoed Chilean furniture, property, and mining produce, allowed Chilean mining companies to continue operating under a government-appointed administrator, and provided all embargoes as temporary "unless the hostilities exercised by Chilean forces requires an energetic retaliation from Bolivia". Then on March 14, Bolivia announced to representatives of foreign powers in Lima that a state of war now existed between herself and Chile. Bolivia then called on Peru to activate the alliance treaty, arguing that the Chile's invasion constituted a casus foederis. Chile, meanwhile, called on Peru to remain neutral.

--Best regards, Keysanger (what?) 12:01, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

1. The Bolivian legislature did not authorize anything on February 27.
2. On February 27, Hilarion Daza publicly announced ("Corvo Proclamation") the Chilean invasion of Bolivia, and told Bolivians to unite against the invaders.
3. Chile requested neutrality when Peru accepted the existence of the Mutual Defense Treaty (Not when Bolivia called for "casus foederis"), during the mediation.

What is so difficult to understand from these things?--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 14:11, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

To Marshal above, I'm not sure that Farcau being the only historian (we know of) to mention legislative authorisation for a Bdow on Feb 27 is a red flag. For a red flag, I feel that you'd need to make an argument for why you think the Bolivian legislature probably didn't do any such thing on Feb 27, or show that another reliable source actually contradicts this. Now Daza's proclamation of Feb 27 tells us nothing about what Daza's legislature did that day. Daza presumably did a number of things on Feb 27. It sounds to me that for Daza to formally and legally declare war, he firstly needed his legislature to give him authorisation to do this - is this right? In any case, the fact that Farcau seems to be the only source mentioning perhaps it's not important. Perhaps we could drop the sentence because it's just not important? Alex Harvey (talk) 09:12, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

I think we can agree in:

On March 1, Bolivia issued a declaration of war on Chile and prohibited all commerce and communications with Chile "while the state-of-war provoked upon Bolivia lasts", provided Chileans ten days to leave Bolivian territory unless gravely ill or handicapped, embargoed Chilean furniture, property, and mining produce, allowed Chilean mining companies to continue operating under a government-appointed administrator, and provided all embargoes as temporary "unless the hostilities exercised by Chilean forces requires an energetic retaliation from Bolivia". Then on March 14, Bolivia announced to representatives of foreign powers in Lima that a state of war now existed between herself and Chile. Bolivia then called on Peru to activate the alliance treaty, arguing that the Chile's invasion constituted a casus foederis. Chile, meanwhile, called on Peru to remain neutral. Peru refused.

this considered MarshallN20 objections and, as I hope, it is a good agreement.

Often is it hard to get an agreement about the terms of reference, as I would like it, instead we agree about wording for the special case. It is the second best solution. But anyway I accept this wording under the condition that in any place within the article that deals this issue must be done in the spirit of this wording. --Best regards, Keysanger (what?) 11:58, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

@Keysanger, you haven't "considered" any of my objections. I am only objecting to 2 parts of Alex's proposal:

1. The February 27 sentence, due to conflicting sources.
2. The "Peru remain neutral" sentence, due to anachronism. Chile requested neutrality when the Treaty of Mutual Defense was "revealed" by Peru.

Everything else is fine, despite you now seem extremely interested in modifying it (despite previously agreeing to it).

@Alex, my primary argument is that Hilarion Daza witheld all news of the Chilean invasion of Antofagasta due to a carnival going on in Bolivia (In Spanish: [30]). My secondary argument is that Daza did not make a "war proclamation" on February 27, but rather simply made a manifesto which explained to Bolivians the ongoing military invasion and called for their patriotic support. I propose the following paragraph:

News of the Chilean invasion reached Hilarión Daza on February 20, but he decided to postpone its mention until the end of ongoing carnival festitivities. On February 27, Daza made a public manifesto informing Bolivians about the invasion and calling for patriotic support. Later, on March 1, he issued a decree which prohibited all commerce and communications with Chile "while the state-of-war provoked upon Bolivia lasts", provided Chileans ten days to leave Bolivian territory unless gravely ill or handicapped, embargoed Chilean furniture, property, and mining produce, allowed Chilean mining companies to continue operating under a government-appointed administrator, and provided all embargoes as temporary "unless the hostilities exercised by Chilean forces requires an energetic retaliation from Bolivia". Then, on March 14, Bolivia announced to representatives of foreign powers in Lima that a state of war now existed between herself and Chile; and called on Peru to activate the alliance treaty, arguing that the Chile's invasion constituted a casus foederis.

Nothing controversial; simply stating things as they happened (without any controversial opinion). What I'd like to know is why Keysanger does not like this proposal. Why does he want to include that "Chile called on Peru to remain neutral" despite this is anachronistic? Why does he want to change Alex's previous proposal despite previously agreeing to it?--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 15:34, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Your proposal doesn't contain the "declaration of war".

Please take your proposal from 5 August 17:23 :

On February 27, Daza issued a proclamation which informed Bolivians about the invasion and called for patriotic support against the invaders. Later, on March 1, he Bolivia issued a decree which Declaration of war on Chile and prohibited all commerce and communications with Chile "while the state-of-war provoked upon Bolivia lasts", provided Chileans ten days to leave Bolivian territory unless gravely ill or handicapped, embargoed Chilean furniture, property, and mining produce, allowed Chilean mining companies to continue operating under a government-appointed administrator, and provided all embargoes as temporary "unless the hostilities exercised by Chilean forces requires an energetic retaliation from Bolivia". Then on March 14, Bolivia announced to representatives of foreign powers in Lima that a state of war now existed between herself and Chile; and called on Peru to activate the alliance treaty, arguing that the Chile's invasion constituted a casus foederis. Chile, meanwhile, called on Peru to remain neutral. Peru refused.

As you can see I used your proposal, deleted the question of 27 Feb that you don't like and added "declaration of war", plus "Chile, meanwhile, called on Peru to remain neutral. Peru refused".

All that you have accepted. OK?. --Best regards, Keysanger (what?) 19:27, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

I haven't accepted any of your changes. All I have accepted is what Alex Harvey (Not Keysanger) has suggested starting from "On March 1" and ending on "Casus foederis". The only thing "Bolivia" ever did was the March 14 notification of a state of war. Everything else (February 27, March 1) was done by Daza. My proposal includes what happened on February 20, when Daza received news of the invasion, and his response of February 27. Please stop distorting my position.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 20:07, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't accept Keysanger's proposal either, in so far as it goes back to asserting that the March 1 decree was a declaration of war, despite that we seem to have established that the declaration of war was probably on March 14. My hope was that we could simply say that Bolivia announced that a state of war now existed between herself & Chile on March 14 and let the reader draw the obvious conclusion that this was a declaration of war. As far as the Feb 27 date is concerned, I don't agree that Marshal has provided any evidence that throws any doubt onto Farcau's statement that the Bolivian legislature authorised a declaration of war that day. However, the matter could certainly be quickly settled if someone found another source other than Farcau. Alex Harvey (talk) 04:06, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

If Keysanger can provide another source which attributes the Bolivian legislature as having "authorised" a declaration of war, I will not contest its inclusion. That being said, I have provided sources which agree that what happened on February 27 was Daza's Proclamacion del Corvo (or Proclamacion del Cuchillo Corvo), which was nothing more than a manifesto informing Bolivians of the Chilean invasion.

Regarding the DoW, I also agree that March 14 is the uncontested date, and Alex's wording perfectly reflects what the sources present. I once again propose:

News of the Chilean invasion reached Hilarión Daza on February 20, but he decided to postpone its mention until the end of ongoing carnival festitivities. On February 27, Daza made a public manifesto informing Bolivians about the invasion and calling for patriotic support. Later, on March 1, he issued a decree which prohibited all commerce and communications with Chile "while the state-of-war provoked upon Bolivia lasts", provided Chileans ten days to leave Bolivian territory unless gravely ill or handicapped, embargoed Chilean furniture, property, and mining produce, allowed Chilean mining companies to continue operating under a government-appointed administrator, and provided all embargoes as temporary "unless the hostilities exercised by Chilean forces requires an energetic retaliation from Bolivia". Then, on March 14, Bolivia announced to representatives of foreign powers in Lima that a state of war now existed between herself and Chile; and called on Peru to activate the alliance treaty, arguing that the Chile's invasion constituted a casus foederis.

It mentions every single date, and lets the reader decide for themselves what they want. Only the first 2 sentences are different from what Alex proposed early in the discussion. If we can agree to this we will be able to move ahead into other discussion points. Best of wishes.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 04:58, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Regarding I have provided sources which agree that what happened on February 27 was Daza's Proclamacion del Corvo ... which was nothing more than a manifesto informing Bolivians of the Chilean invasion: Once again, I don't understand this point at all. You seem to be saying that because the President, Daza, made a public proclamation on Feb 27, that makes it unlikely that the legislature, which was presumably at least ostensibly independent of Daza, didn't authorise a declaration of war on the same day. Without doubt a lot of things happened on Feb 27 so I'll have to be honest and say I don't find this argument compelling at all - unless I am fundamentally missing something. Alex Harvey (talk) 07:49, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

My apologies Alex, that's not what I meant to express. My argument is to include the "Corvo Proclamation" as it is relevant information (Keysanger doesn't include it in his proposals). My counter-argument for the "Bolivian legislature" issue is the following: If it is true that the Bolivian legislature authorised war, then it should be easy to find more than one source that supports it. Both arguments are separate. If Keysanger manages to prove that the Bolivian legislature did authorize war, then both February 27 events should be mentioned. The part I don't agree with including at all is the sentence where "Chile requested Peru to remain neutral", as this did not take place on March 14 (If we recall, Peru's diplomat Lavalle was still negotiating matters in Chile on March 18).--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 13:24, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

When did Bolivia issue the declaration of war?. --Best regards, Keysanger (what?) 17:19, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

As far I remember, Chile declared war against Bolivia in April 5, 1879; and there is not necessary a mutual declaration of war to establish a formal war between two o more countries. Can you provide any source to sustain than Bolivia explicitly declare war against Chile after the invasion of Antofagasta? Greetings.Cloudaoc (talk) 22:57, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

My understanding is that Alex proposes that the readers decide for themselves whether they want to attribute Bolivia's March 14 "State of War" notification as a declaration of war or not. For me that is the most sensible option since it avoids a long-winded discussion in the main text. Therefore, I agree with Alex, and I believed you (Keysanger) also agreed with him per your earlier statement. What now I don't understand is your (Keysanger's) desperate desire to somewhere include the term "declaration of war"?--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 01:15, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

@Marshal, I agree on your point about dropping "Chile requested Peru to remain neutral" simply because this is already in the article a bit further down (I didn't see it when I proposed this originally). I think your proposal is good and don't have any problem with it myself.
@Keysanger, if Marshal & Cloudaoc are happy with Marshal's proposal it might be a good compromise. Importantly, I find it inconceivable that any reader will detect a difference between the phrases "Bolivia announced that a state of war existed on March 14" and "Bolivia declared war on March 14". Although I find it very hard to believe that Farcau would have asserted that the Bolivian legislature authorised a declaration of war on Feb 27 if it didn't in fact happen, at the same time it might be argued legitimately that if Farcau is the only source to mention it, it may not be important enough to mention. Alex Harvey (talk) 14:15, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

continue 2

MarshalN20's proposal, I repeat, lacks the mainstream knowledge asserted by Historians like Sater, Farcau, Cluny, Besadre, Denegri (from USA, United Kingdom, France and Peru) (among others) that on March 1. there was a Bolivian declaration of war. Wikipedia's editors can't change the mainstream of the histography and are compelled to repeat what the historians say. And they don't say "state of war", they say "declaration of war". Therefore I propose

• On March 1, Bolivia issued a Declaration of war on Chile and prohibited…

I agree on :

• News of the Chilean invasion reached Hilarión Daza on February 20, but he decided to postpone its mention until the end of ongoing carnival festitivities. On February 27, Daza made a public manifesto informing Bolivians about the invasion and calling for patriotic support. '

Regarding "neutral", in no place of MarshallN20's newest version [31] is said that Peru refused to remain neutral. It must be said. Therefore I propose :

• Chile, meanwhile, asked on Peru to remain neutral. Peru refused. --Best regards, Keysanger (what?) 07:39, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

We have already had this discussion and you already agreed with my proposal, and that very clearly was that we do not call the March 1 decree a declaration of war. Sater is explicit that the March 1 decree was not a declaration of war. Moreover it seems very obvious to me from all I have read, including your sources, that the fact of the matter is March 1 wasn't a declaration of war. I already reject the proposal that "Chile, meanwhile, asked on Peru to remain neutral. Peru refused" because, as I just said, this is already in the article, but a bit further down. Alex Harvey (talk) 08:26, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, but I disagree. To write "state of war" would be a clear case of original research because the most of historians, also Sater, agree that there were a Bdow. --Best regards, Keysanger (what?) 11:39, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

It's certainly not original research; source (iii) in your list which you are counting as support for your position reads, "On March 14 Bolivia advised representatives of foreign powers that a state of war existed with Chile. ... Godoi advised President Pinto that this move was to prevent Chile from securing armaments abroad ... Meanwhile over the Andes at La Paz, and it may be said here parenthetically that a single telegraph line might have prevented this war, Daza issued letters of marque against Chile on March 26, and a formal war circular on March 31". Would you be satisfied if we added the letters of marque and formal war circular of March 31? Alex Harvey (talk) 12:45, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Y I'll agree with your proposal Alex, the references would be enough to cover the fact until the Chilean war declaration in April, and as far we noticed (and researched), is the only DoW explicitly stated as such. Greetings.Cloudaoc (talk) 02:48, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Y Needless to say, I agree with Alex as well. Also, as Alex noted, Hilarion Daza seems to have been playing with fire on purpose during this time. Moreover, as Cloudaoc notes, the only explicit declaration of war document in existence is from Chile (April 5). Of course, at no poin in Alex's version is it denied that Bolivia made a declaration of war in March, but rather it tells the story without any biased opinion. In any case, "state of war circulars" are by themselves a sort of declaration of the existence of war. It's much less confusing for readers to simply understand the events rather than for them to be told what to think.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 03:27, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't agree that referring to a Bdow is "biased opinion" but it does appear, if no one can actually find reference to an extant written Bolivian declaration of war, to be interpretation of Bolivia's March 14 announcement to foreign representatives that a "state of war" existed. Of course, there are still those few sources which say Bolivia formally declared war on March 18. In so far as there are reliable sources which make no mention of a Bdow I feel that this compromise should be adopted. If Keysanger is still not happy with this then I will raise an RfC presenting Keysanger's final proposal next to Marshal's and we should all agree to accept once and for all the verdict of uninvolved editors - unless further evidence can be presented of course. Alex Harvey (talk) 05:24, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

@Alex,

Precisely that is the question, the interpretation of the decree of 1. March. WP editors must abtain of interpretations of primary sources. Cloudac and MarshalN20 would like to read the decree and say "look at there, nowhere is the word declaration!, it isn't a declaration of war!" and then they would follow "Under international law there has been never a declaration of war ...". That would be original research. Look at that:

• Cloudac: As you can read, the text doesn't include the sentence: "La Républica de Bolivia declara la guerra a Chile" … or
• MarshalN20: the only explicit declaration of war document in existence is from Chile.

The english Wikipedia accepts interpretations of primary sources only if they are done by secondary sources and the Lowest common denominator of the list of 20 sources is that there was a Bolivian declaration of war. We can vary the date, because there is a lot of uncertainty on account of the non-existing telegraph line to La Paz but not about the core of the message of the historians, there is no confusion: the historians interpret the decree as a declaration of war.

I propose as date "in the Middle March" or "in March". In no way should the reader be mislead to the presuption that there wasn't a Bdow.

--Best regards, Keysanger (what?) 15:31, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

I recognize a uncertainty in my source University of Iowa because I can't find the word declaration. But there are the words Procamation of War, War Circular and General War Manifesto (pages 66, 70, 66). I think one of the three is a War declaration. May be?. --Best regards, Keysanger (what?) 15:43, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Maybe? Your guess about the meaning of these three documents is actually a clear example of WP:ORIGINAL, what you think about them is not relevant, and please refrain to make such affirmation against me, which is absolutely false. There is nothing to interpret in the March 1 decree, the text is plain an clear., and do not state any explicit DoW.Cloudaoc (talk) 16:30, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

The University of Iowa source is the same as the Jefferson Dennis source. Dennis uses "proclamation of war" and "war manifesto" for February 27, and he provides as source the text of the "Corvo Proclamation" (which is neither a proclamation of war or war manifesto). "War circular" is used for March 31 (War circulars are letters sent to foreign governments announcing a state of war and explaining the reasons for the war; in other words, "war circulars" are not declarations of war). How funny you forget to mention these things. I hope you're not again trying to confuse Alex? I'll respond to the rest of your points in number format:

1. No original research is being presented. The current proposal simply presents the events as how the majority of historians agree they took place.
2. Cloudaoc, Alex ,Cambalachero (who wrote a long statement in this talk page), and MarshalN20 (myself) are against writing "Bolivia declared war" and ending it with that. The situation is more complex.
3. At no point in the proposal is it denied that Bolivia declared war.
4. Considerable debate exists among historians regarding the March 1st decree. You keep trying to claim no controversy exists and dismiss my sources as "primary". Wikipedia cannot assert that March 1 was a "declaration of war" because the historical community is also divided on this topic (Including your source from William F. Sater).
5. The opinions of Cloudaoc and myself are nothing more than just that; we are entitled to our POV. The current proposal, based 100% on Alex Harvey's proposal, at no point includes our point of view.
6. Chile is indeed the only country who wrote an official declaration of war. This is not an opinion but a fact. I can provide you with the text of the Chilean declaration of war, but can you provide me the text of the official Bolivian and Peruvian declarations of war? As Cloudaoc noted a while back, a war does not necessarily start with declarations or proclamations. Did the Japanese attack Pearl Harbor prior to declaring war? Did Germany declare war on Poland prior to invading them?
7. As Ramiro Prudencio Lizon writes in La Razon ([32]), telegraph lines were in use at the time. Bolivia did not have them, but Peru did. Hilarion Daza got the news of the Antofagasta invasion from Peru (On February 20-21), and later made its March 14 public from Lima (in Peru). You keep trying to claim that the lack of telegraph lines caused problems with the dates, but this is not the case at all.

4 editors have expressed their opinion in favor of a thorough explanation of the events which will allo the readers to understand the situation on their own. You are the only one who keeps demanding the opposite.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 16:20, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

@Keysanger, because I don't want to spend the rest of my life splitting hairs over this I have proposed an RfC below. I'd like everyone to agree that the RfC itself is fair and then we can hopefully settled the dispute with a vote given to uninvolved editors. Alex Harvey (talk) 14:08, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

The road to the Bdow

We have long discussed about the issue and find out that there was a Bolivian declaration of war but were astonished about the different dates authors assign to this event. There were 4 dates: 27 February, 1., 14. and 18. March 1879.

Alex and Keysanger don't have any trouble understanding the discrepancy in the dates given Boliva's lack of telegraph lines, but how have to be ordered and understand?

The 27. February is not very important because it was only an authorization for the war given by the legislature within a dictature. Only an ornamental question. Moreover 1866 (?), the Bolivian legislature had already issued a similar authorization but nothing occured.

The German book that deals in detail with the question 1.-14. February. It is Gerhard Lang's, "Boliviens Streben nach freiem Zugang zum Meer", Hamburger Gesellschaft für Völkerrecht und Auswärtige Politik, edited by Prof. Dr. Herbert Krüger, Band 6, Hamburg 1966, page 25:

Die peruanisch-chilenischen Verhandlungen waren noch im Gange. Da gab der bolivianische Sonderbevollmächtigte in Perú, Außenminister Serapio Reyes Ortiz, der den Auftrag hatte, von der peruanischen Regierung gemäß Artikel 3 des Bündnisvertrages von 1873 die Anerkennung des casus foederis zu erwirken, namens seiner Regierung dem bei der peruanischen Regierung akkreditierten diplomatischen Korps am 14. März durch Zirkularnote die vom 1. März datierte Kriegserklärung Boliviens an Chile(Fußnote 54) bekannt. Dieser ungewöhnliche Schritt, eine Kriegserklärung auf diese Weise publik zu machen, erklärt sich daraus, daß zu jener Zeit nur wenige Länder in La Paz vertreten waren und die Nachrichtenübermittlung von dort wesentlich längere Zeit benötigte als von Lima aus. Mit der rechtzeitigen Bekanntgabe der Kriegserklärung aber sollten die Auslieferung von Kriegsschiffen, die bei europäischen Werften im Auftrag gegeben worden waren, und weitere Waffenlieferungen an Chile verhindert werden. (Fußnote 54: State papers, Bd. 71, S. 926)

Translation 1:

The Peruvian-Chilean negotiations were still in progress when, on his government's behalf, the Bolivian special plenipotentiary in Peru, foreign minister Serapio Reyes Ortiz, who was commissioned to obtain the Peruvian government's recognition of casus foederis according to article 3 of the 1873 treaty of alliance, announced Bolivia's declaration of war on Chile (Footnote 54), dated March 1 by circular note, to the diplomatic Corps accredited to Peru on March 14. This unusual step, to make public a declaration of war in this fashion, can be explained by the fact that only few countries were represented in La Paz at the time, and communications from there took significantly longer than from Lima. The timely announcement of the declaration of war, however, was supposed to impede the deployment of war ships that had been commissioned to European shipyards, as well as the delivery of weapons to Chile.

Translation 2:

The Peruvian-Chilean negotiations were still in progress. At that time, on his government's behalf, the Bolivian special plenipotentiary in Peru, foreign minister Serapio Reyes Ortiz announced Bolivia's declaration of war on Chile (Footnote 54), dated March 1 by circular note, to the diplomatic Corps accredited to Peru on 14. March. (Reyes Ortiz had been commissioned to obtain the Peruvian government's recognition of casus foederis according to article 3 of the 1873 Treaty of Alliance.) The unusual step of making public a declaration of war in this fashion can be explained by the fact that only few countries were represented in La Paz at the time, and communications from there took significantly longer than from Lima. The timely announcement of the declaration of war, however, was meant to impede the deployment of warships that had been commissioned from European shipyards, as well as the delivery of weapons to Chile.

The information given in the paragraph explains the relationship between the declaration of war issued by Daza in La Paz on 1. March and the anouncement of Bolivian foreign minister Reyes in Lima on 14. March. Lacking enough international resonance from the declaration in La Paz they declared it also in Lima in order to stop delivery of weapons to Chile.

About the 18. March, Jose Lavalle's report ("Mi mision en Chile en 1879", Edición, prólogo y notas por Félix Denegri Luna , Lima, Peru, 1979, Instituto de Estudios Histórico-Marítimos del Perú.) states that (page 84):

• En la mañana del 18 recibí una carta verbal* del señor ministro Fierro [Chilean Minister for Foreign Affairs] pidiéndome que le viese a las 12 del día siguiente, para tener una conferencia relativa al objeto de mi mision, y pocos momentos después llegó a mis manos un suplemento del "Diario Oficial", en el que se anunciaba que el ministro de relaciones exteriores había recibido desde Tacna, por medio de correos, y desde Caldera por el telegráfo, el decreto expedido por el presidente de Bolivia en 1° del mes de marzo, que seguía, en el cual establecíase por parte de esa nación el "casus belli" con Chile, con todos sus efectos y consequencias

(The text of envoy Lavalle is a primary source)

Jorge Besadre, the wellknown Peruvian historician states that same in "Historia de la Republica, La guerra con Chile",

Pero las pasiones excitadas no se enfriaron. El dí­a 18 de marzo se abrió un nuevo perí­odo de la misión Lavalle. Ese dí­a fue recibido en Santiago, desde Tacna por correo y desde Caldera por telégrafo el decreto expedido por el Presidente Daza y notificado al cuerpo diplomático el 14 de marzo estableciendo el casus belli con Chile con todos sus efectos y consecuencias, junto con otros decretos de ruptura de relaciones mientras durara la guerra y de expulsión y confiscación de bienes chilenos en Bolivia.

That is, on 18 March was published in Chilean official newspaper the Bolivian declaration of war. For understandable reasons some authors skips to repeat the date of the 1. March or the date of the 14 March or the date of the 18. March.

My proposal for the article is:

• On March 1, Bolivia issued a declaration of war on Chile and prohibited all commerce and communications with Chile "while the state-of-war provoked upon Bolivia lasts", provided Chileans ten days to leave Bolivian territory unless gravely ill or handicapped, embargoed Chilean furniture, property, and mining produce, allowed Chilean mining companies to continue operating under a government-appointed administrator, and provided all embargoes as temporary "unless the hostilities exercised by Chilean forces requires an energetic retaliation from Bolivia". Then on March 14, Bolivia's foreign minister Serapio Reyes Ortiz announced to representatives of foreign powers in Lima that a state of war now existed between herself and Chile. Bolivia then called on Peru to activate the alliance treaty, arguing that the Chile's invasion constituted a casus foederis. Chile, meanwhile, called on Peru to remain neutral. Peru refused.

In view of the fact that the 22 given sources support the text of the proposal, there should be no reason to bring the case to the RfC, what in any case can be done if Alex or others insists.

--Best regards, Keysanger (what?) 12:50, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

This doesn't surprise me at all. You, Keysanger:

1. Keep disregarding the sources which clearly state that the March 1 declaration was not a declaration of war (which include the source you provided: William F. Sater).
2. Keep disregarding the conflict of dates (March 14, March 18, February 27, and even February 7?) and attribute it to a "telegraph problem". Yet, the Bolivia-Peru communications barely took 3-4 days (Mollendo had telegraph lines connected to Lima), while the Peru-Chile communications were just a matter of hours. There was no telegraph problem.
3. Have yet to provide anoter source which verifies that the Bolivian legislature authorized war, but keep mentioning it as if it were a fact.
4. Keep insisting on the "Peru to remain neutral" stuff despite both Alex and I have explained it is redundant (repeated in the paragraph below).

Gerhard Lang's intepretation is interesting, to say the least. My understanding (from his text) is that Bolivia published the War Circular in Lima, on March 14, because Lima had telegraph lines. Other than that, nothing new is really being provided.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 14:46, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

1) There are a lot of sources that set the date of the Bdow to 1. March and the other sources doesn't contradict but support the dates as given in the proposal: the subsequent announcement of 14. March in Lima and the 18. March publication in Santiago. Sater's version doesn't say "was not a", he says "aparently was not a".

2) I don't know any 7? issue. La Paz was conected neither to Lima nor Arica nor Tacna. Mollendo is a town bordering the Pacific Ocean in southern Peru!.

3) I don't provide any other source about 27 February because the 27. February doesn't appear in the proposal.

4) The "Peru to remain neutral .. Peru refused" stuff can be shortened as far as appears in other place

Do you have substantive claims? or better, do you have reliable sources that states that "unter international law there wasn't a Bdow"?. --Best regards, Keysanger (what?) 18:13, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

1. "There are a lot" of sources which claim the war took place at other dates, thereby they contradict the March 1st idea.
2. I'm not even going to argue about the Sater source. Whether he had a poor use of words or thought it sounded good, the basic concept of his statement is that he is against the idea of Bolivia declaring war on March 1st. His change of mind from previous books only serves to confirm that, upon further research, he has realized his mistake.
3. La Paz -> Mail travels through Lake Titicaca (probably through steamboat) -> Mail reaches Mollendo -> Telegraph from Mollendo to Lima -> Hello World! Ramiro Prudencio Lizon in La Razon explains this quite clearly ([33]) and further claims that Chilean historian Benjamín Vicuña Mackenna wrote "the news did not reach La Paz through a long desert travel or in the slow step of a donkey, but rather in the wings of vapor and the electric telegraph".
4. In this old map ([34], Mollendo and Lima are among the "major telegraph" points by 1891. This didn't happen from one day to another, and serves to further support Mackenna's and Prudencio Lizon's statements. Your claim that there were "correspondence delays" which caused the "errors in the dates" is completely absurd.

In conclusion, since there is no general agreement among historians of when (what specific date) Bolivia supposedly "declared war", Wikipedia should not present any date as a fact. Alex's solution of simply presenting what happened based on the accounts from historians is, by far, the best option. Alex's solution not only provides a smooth read, but also gives readers the option to decide for themselves what they think about Hilarion Daza's actions (instead of being told he's the "bad" or "good" guy, it is up to the reader to evaluate his actions). If you could simply agree with that, as you originally did (but then changed your mind), then this problem could be over.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 20:54, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Issue 3: Repase references

Unresolved

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Issue 2: Part II: Draft RfC

Unresolved

I have created a draft RfC at User:Alexh19740110/Draft_RfC_Bdow and I would like editors to agree on the wording, sources, and so on & then we'll post it here as a RfC. Perhaps discussion related to getting the RfC text right should go at the Draft_RfC_Bdow discussion page. Alex Harvey (talk) 07:58, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Thank you Alex. I have edited (moved) some of the sources for better analysis. I explained the changes in the edit summaries. Best of wishes.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 14:27, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

While it is clear from Sater that the March 1 decree and a later "declaration of war" are two different things, Keysanger has argued that the confusion over March 14 vs 18 may simply be the date of an announcement or declaration of war in Bolivia and the conveying of the same announcement back to Chile due to the lack of telegraph lines. So I don't think those sources saying war was declared on March 18 necessarily contradict those that say it was declared on March 14. Perhaps proposal #1 could perhaps be changed to "middle of March" as Keysanger suggested. Alex Harvey (talk) 09:21, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

I see your point, but I'd throw into consideration a couple of things:

(1)Lima-Santiago (Peru-Chile) had a same-day telegraph system. The Bolivian minister in Lima read Hilarion Daza's "war circular" on March 14; and record exists of Godoy (Chile's minister in Lima) and Alejandro Fierro (Chile's foreign minister in Santiago) sending each other telegraphed messages that same day discussing Bolivia's decision to announce a "state of war" to foreign powers.

(2)According to both Jose de la Valle (Peru's chief diplomat in Santiago) and Jorge Basadre (historian), on March 18, Daza's March 1 (not 14) decree was made public in Santiago. Basically, in terms of dates and decrees, March 18 = March 1.

I think, based on these 2 points, that "middle of March" would not fit properly (March 14 is more exact). What do you think?--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 11:13, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

At least one of the sources states explicitly that a telegraph line could have prevented the war. There must be a reason for this. Also, regarding March 18, if you were correct, you would have Sater making an absurd self contradictory statement; he says the March 1 decree was apparently not a formal declaration of war, but holds that such a declaration was made on March 18. Alex Harvey (talk) 11:33, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

The source you refer to is the University of Iowa (Which is the same as the Jefferson Dennis source). My understanding of Jefferson Dennis' words is that a telegraph line between Bolivia and Chile might have eased discussions as Daza could have messaged directly with Chilean president Pinto. Dennis claims that Pinto told Lavalle (the Peruvian chief diplomat in Santiago) that Godoi (Chile's minister in Lima, Peru) was "excitable and influenced by visionaries". In other words, the Chile->Peru correspondence was doomed to go bad due to the imperialist/nationalist ambitions of the "visionaries", whereas the Chile->Bolivia correspondence could have ended in a much different situation (which would not have involved Peru).

In case of doubt, here is the text: On March 24, President Pinto wrote a member of the cabinet that he believed Peru was "bluffing" and that he did not think Prado wanted war nor that many people in Peru did. He was right. Few people in Peru wanted war for the country was not united after the recent civil wars. But they were bound by a treaty between Bolivia and their government, made when both countries were under different administrations. The following day Lavalle wrote his government that Pinto had told him that Godoi was excitable and influenced by visionaries, and that allowance should be made for his temperament. However, military time tables had started and when they start all the peace ships and conferences in the world can hardly stop them. [...] Meanwhile over the Andes at La Paz, and it may be said here parenthetically that a single telegraph line might have prevented this war, Daza issued letters of marque against Chile on March 26, and a formal war circular on March 31.

Regarding the March 18 matter. Here are the texts.

Lavalle (word for word): "In the morning of the [March] 18th, I received a verbal letter from minister Fierro [Chilean Minister of Foreign Affairs] asking me to see him at 12:00 the next day, in order to have a conference relating the objective of my mission, and a few moments later came to my hands a supplement of the "Diario Oficial" ["Official Diary"], in which it was announced that the Minister of Foreign Relations had received 'from Tacna, through correspondence, and from Caldera through telegraph, the decree made by Bolivia's president on March 1st, in which it established from that nation the "casus beli" with Chile, with all its effects and consequences."

Basadre: On March 18 a new period opened in Lavalle's mission. That day Santiago received, from Tacna through correspondence and from Caldera through telegraph the [March 1st] decree expedited by President Daza and notified to the diplomatic body [in Lima] the 14th of March establishing the casus belli with Chile and all its effects and consequences, along with other decrees of diplomatic rupture while the war lasted and the expulsion and confiscation of Chilean goods in Bolivia.

Both sources make note that, on March 18, the March 1st decree was published in Santiago (Chile). At least that's what I understand, but I may be wrong. What do you think?--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 15:07, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

I think the phrase "establishing the casus belli with Chile and all its effects and consequences, along with other decrees of diplomatic rupture while the war lasted" may well be a formal declaration of war? Alex Harvey (talk) 05:54, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

No, a formal declaration of war is always explicit, that's why the Bolivian government was very carefully in the words chosen to made its official declarations. As I mentioned before, not all the wars starts with a formal DoW, in fact is almost the opposite, just a few conflicts were initiated with a DoW, even today. The Cenepa War is a clear example, neither side mades a formal DoW, but as far I remember the Peruvian Congress issued a warning to the Ecuadorian government, declaring than if the Peruvian President was harmed or killed during its visit to the frontline, Peru inmediately declares war to the Ecuador. Greetings. Cloudaoc (talk) 14:08, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

@Alex, establishing the casus belli (case for belligerence or cause of belligerence) is not a declaration of war. The casus belli being refered to in this case is the Chilean invasion of Antofagasta, which the majority of historians attribute as the start of the War of the Pacific. "Establishing the casus belli" is simply another form of stating a justification for the war (i.e, why Bolivia is at war with Chile), but not a declaration of war against a country. "Diplomatic rupture" is not a declaration of war either as Bolivia has constantly ruptured relations Chile in the 20th century, but war has not been declared. Basically, in simpler terms, both sources are refering to the Bolivian War Circular; and War Circulars aren't declarations of war either. War circulars are messages provided to foreign governments (mainly neighboring countries) explaining why a country considers itself at war with another country. Chile also made a war cicular in April, in which it explained its position in the conflict, while Peruvian president Prado made a casus foederis announcement (which also explained Peru's position in the conflict).

Using the United States as an example. After the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, the United States declared it to be the casus belli (reason for conflict) and then the US Congress formally authorized the declaration of war from the president (Roosevelt went on to declare war on Japan and its allies, Germany and Italy). The United States has not formally declared war on another country ever since then, and yet the US has been at war several other times (Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq). The casus belli for the Afghanistan invasion was the September 11 bombardments, while the casus belli for Iraq was the alleged housing of WMDs. I'm not sure what the Vietnam/Korea casus belli were at the time...my guess is that they didn't bother to explain it either (which is why much anti-war protests came about). Therefore, establishing the casus belli is not a declaration of war, much less is it formal.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 15:24, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

And what about "and all its effects and consequences" ...? Anyhow, I found anther book, Lines in the Sand by William E. Skuban and he wrote, "President Daza of Bolivia responded by declaring war on Chile on February 27." Further, I was able to find his email address and I've written to him to see if he can explain why there are so many dates for this declaration of war and what the nature of the actual declaration was. He hasn't responded yet but I suppose we should give him a few days to respond. Alex Harvey (talk) 15:25, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Analysis:

(1)The terms "Effects" and "Consequences" are synonyms (the same meaning). He states them both for the sake of sounding good.

(2)Given the contex in which the phrase is used, it means that Chile's invasion started the war. "Chile's invasion started" being the casus belli, and "the war" is its consequence.

It's great that you have contacted Skuban, but it may end up being a dead end. I'd love to hear his explanation.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 16:16, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

William E. Skuban has not replied and while it's possible that he's away or very busy it's probably time to raise this RFC - is Keysanger still here? Alex Harvey (talk) 11:16, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes. I posted a last proposal with a in-depth analisys of the old and newest sources that I consider definitive. Please take a look to the road to the Bdow. There should be no doubt at all any more. --Best regards, Keysanger (what?) 12:56, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

@Alex, my guess is that Skuban is busy. I honestly don't know what else could be added to the discussion (sources) that hasn't already been mentioned. Keysanger's newest source provides nothing new to the discussion (despite he seems to think it to be the "definitive" source). I'm ready for the RfC.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 16:03, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

William Skuban replied today with a brief apology that he doesn't know why there is a discrepancy in the dates. He suggests Farcau might know why. On Keysanger's work above, I don't agree that it adds nothing new - at a minimum it shows that another historian without any reason to be biased believes that the March 1 decree was a declaration of war. It seems we are getting closer to understanding the proliferation of dates (and actually it doesn't seem to have anything to do with telegraph lines after all). As far as settling the disagreement, though, I tend to agree that 16 or 17 sources saying the same thing doesn't make that much difference. What might make a difference, though, would be if someone was able to dig out the "State Papers" referred to in Keysanger's German source. Perhaps I'll see if Farcau is contactable. Alex Harvey (talk) 07:41, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

It's great that Skuban replied, but I feel he has demonstrated to be an example of a "parrot source" (simply repeats what he has found, without really investigating why different dates for the alleged DoW exist). I do agree with him that Farcau probably knows more about it; he's a veteran of the US Foreign Service. However, he has somewhat of a celebrity status, so it might be difficult to get a hold of him. If you do get to contact Farcau, it would be great if he could actually explain why he considers March 14 as the date of the Bolivia DoW. Regarding Keysanger's source, as you mention near the end of your statement: "Sources saying the same thing [don't] make that much difference". Many of those sources tend to be "parrots" which just jump off the cliff because they've seen others do it.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 14:31, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Actually what I really mean is that I think - as far as Wikipedia's rules go - Keysanger has probably provided enough evidence to support the proposition that Bolivia declared war. Unfortunately I think that an RFC will bring in suggestions that favour Keysanger's position. I say unfortunately because I am now persuaded personally that the situation in reality was more complicated. So if we are all tired of this discussion, I suggest we move forward to that RFC - and if Keysanger could update my proposal with a wording that he is happy with we can get this moving. In the mean time, I have searched for an email address for Farcau with no luck so I asked Prof. Skuban if he has Farcau's email address. If we prefer we can wait to see if I can contact Farcau. Also, perhaps someone would like to propose the next POV concern - is Keysanger still concerned about the 'defensive alliance' issue? - because one way or another (whether we search for more evidence, wait for Farcau, or raise an RFC), we will need to wait several weeks to have this issue finally settled. Alex Harvey (talk) 07:08, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Keysanger's proposal:

On March 1, Bolivia issued a declaration of war on Chile and prohibited all commerce and communications with Chile "while the state-of-war provoked upon Bolivia lasts", provided Chileans ten days to leave Bolivian territory unless gravely ill or handicapped, embargoed Chilean furniture, property, and mining produce, allowed Chilean mining companies to continue operating under a government-appointed administrator, and provided all embargoes as temporary "unless the hostilities exercised by Chilean forces requires an energetic retaliation from Bolivia". Then on March 14, Bolivia's foreign minister Serapio Reyes Ortiz announced to representatives of foreign powers in Lima that a state of war now existed between herself and Chile. Bolivia then called on Peru to activate the alliance treaty, arguing that the Chile's invasion constituted a casus foederis. Chile, meanwhile, called on Peru to remain neutral. Peru refused.

@Alex, Keysanger can provide as many sources as he wants that say "Bolivia declared war on Chile". That's great for him. However, when it comes down to the dates, there exists a conflict not only among those who state "DoW did not take place on such-and-such date", but also among those who provide the different dates (February 27, March 1, March 14, and March 18). Given that controversy, Wikipedia cannot attribute a specific date to Bolivia's alleged DoW. This goes along the lines of what Cambalechero wrote in this talk page: Vague sources, as plenty as they may be, are useless in a discussion that deals with specific times. If the RfC goes in favor of Keysanger, all I can expect from it is a vague DoW mention.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 14:33, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Timeline

I see that we don't have the same view interpretation of the Wikiedia rules and want to explain my view of.

1. The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth In my opinion that means in this case that we have to repeat what the historians say, we like it or we don't like it. And the historians say that there was a Bolivian declaration of war, that is unchallengeable. Beside two or three unknown Peruvian and Bolivian sources there is nothing about the "Under international law there was no Bolivian declaration of war". Of course I would like to have only one document, only one date, only one name and only one opinion of all historians about every aspect of the war of the pacific. We haven't it. And also because this reason it does matter how many reliable sources state that there was a Bolivian delaration of war. It is a difference because there are two Peruvian and Bolivian sources that states the opposite but 22 sources that state the positive statement.
2. A declaration of war is a formal act by which one nation goes to war against another. The declaration is a performative speech act (or the signing of a document) by an authorized party of a national government in order to create a state of war between two or more states. We know that this act exists, it is the act of 1. March 1879. See page 65.
3. What about the multiple dates for the Bdow? Why?. May be a timeline can help us to dispose of once and for all the doubts about the sequence of the facts.

Date	Act
27 February 1879:	Bolivia issued a issued a war manifesto against Chile
1. March 1879:	Daza issued the 1 March decree with the declaration of war in La Paz (See Spanish text in page 65)
14. March 1879:	Bolivia's Foreign minister Serapio Reyes Ortiz announced Bolivia's declaration of war on Chile from Lima, based on the 1. March decree.
18. March 1879:	The Chilean state newspaper Diario Oficial publishes in Santiago de Chile Serapio Reyes's announcement from 14. February in Lima

As expected for a events that were not recorded in writing and only seldom analysed by the histography, the historians can use different names for the same event or different events for the same fact. Therefore we have that some historian consider the 1. March text, others take in account the 14. March and so on.

Alex, if you read carefully the sources, you will note that every event of this timeline is supported by at least one source and, very important, it is factually not contradicted by the other sources. "factually" means that the names may be inapropiate but the fact and the dates don't contradict the timeline.

Please, take a look to the lede of the current Wikipedia version of the Chilean Declaration of Independence.

The Chilean Declaration of Independence is a document declaring the independence of Chile from the Spanish Empire. It was drafted in January 1818 and approved by Supreme Director Bernardo O'Higgins on February 12, 1818 at Talca, despite being dated in Concepción on January 1, 1818. The ceremony of independence was performed on February 12, 1818, the first anniversary of the Battle of Chacabuco.

The original document, displaying manuscript comments by O'Higgins, was damaged at the Palace of the Real Audiencia of Chile. In 1832, under President José Joaquín Prieto, a new copy was sent to Peru to be signed by O'Higgins, and later by his former ministers, Miguel Zañartu, Hipólito Villegas and José Ignacio Zenteno, who were still living in Chile. This copy was kept at the Palacio de La Moneda until the 1973 Chilean coup d'état, when it was destroyed during the fighting.

We have a draft from January 1818, approved 12. February 1818, back dated to January 1. 1818 and 1832 was made a new copy of the document. Four documents with the same name, different circumtances and different content. And this lede doesn't consider the Act of 18 September 1810, that I personally hold for the actually Declaration of Independence.

Not enough?. Here are events that despite some uncertainty in the date or circumtances are accepted as facts by the history:

• Desiderius Erasmus : Desiderius Erasmus was born in Rotterdam on October 28.[4] The exact year of his birth is debated but some evidence confirming 1466 can be found in Erasmus's own words (year?)
• John Colet : he was born in London in January 1467 (day?)
• Battle of Yanbu : Date 1811 (month?, day?)
• Battle of Al-Safra : Date 1812 (month?, day?)
• Battle of Medina (1812) (month?, day?)
• Single bullet theory#Criticisms of the Single Bullet Theory (how many snipers?)
• Category:Date of birth unknown

--Best regards, Keysanger (what?) 20:20, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

William F. Sater: "[Daza] declared that Chile had imposed "a state of war" on Bolivia. Apparently this [March 1st] decree did not constitute a formal declaration of belligerence, which he announced on 18 March."

Keysanger on William F. Sater: "Sater wrote more than one book about this theme, he is a profesor of Latin American History in the USA and probably one of the best informed person in the world about the War of the Pacific."

Keysanger is obviously cherry picking the sources. He discards what he doesn't like, and only takes into account whatever it is that is convenient for his argument. When taking into account all of the sources, a conflict of dates rises. Not only does this rise from the side against a Bolivian DoW, but also from the side in favor of a Bolivia.

It's easy for Keysanger to claim that "Bolivia declared war on March 1st", because "most sources say Bolivia declared war". However, he ignores that those "most sources" (such as William F. Sater) explicitly claim that the declaration of war was at some other time (February 27, March 14, March 18). In Sater's case, he goes as far as to disregard the March 1st decree as a DoW, claiming that it "did not constitute a formal declaration of belligerence".

In any case, what's even more astounding aside from his cherry picking is his apologetic nature. He pretends to know what these historians were thinking. He assumes that they made "errors" on their dates, and blames it on telegraph lines. This discussion could have been over long ago if it wasn't for this Keysanger's absurd cherry picked and apologetic argument.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 20:58, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Regarding your "Chilean Declaration of Independence" example. It actually follows what Alex suggests: Present the information as it exactly happened. The other examples you provide in no way compare to this discussion. While they don't know when their event took place, we do have plenty of sources describing what happened at every single date mentioned (February 27, March 1, March 14, and March 18). In any case, your position is understandeable: Cherry picking makes it difficult to see the big picture, especially as the cherry pickers only focus on the certain aspects that are beneficial to them.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 21:18, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

@Keysanger, you wrote above that "Daza issued the 1 March decree with the declaration of war in La Paz". That sentence doesn't make any sense to me. You need to provide an explanation that acknowledges Sater's view that the formal declaration was given on March 18 then this might be settled. If March 1 was not a formal declaration of war, then no one, anywhere, has so far explained how we get from a decree carefully worded to avoid a declaration of war to a declaration of war on March 14 or March 18. If all that happened on March 18 was that the March 1 decree was published - and if the March 1 decree wasn't a declaration of war - I do not understand how publication of this decree is also a declaration of war. As far as Wikipedia rules goes, the verifiability requirement cuts both ways here. Marshal can equally point to Sater and show that March 1 declaration wasn't a declaration of war (Sater)_and that is verifiable too. So again I believe the only way to resolve this is with outside opinions. Alex Harvey (talk) 22:43, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

I have now written to Bruce Farcau and explained this dilemma to him. Hopefully he might respond with more on what happened on March 14. Alex Harvey (talk) 08:15, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Hi Alex,

I read Sater's sentence and have no problem to understand it. Perhaps I made a mistake but if I analyze the sentence:

• Two weeks after the Chilean occupation of Antofagasta, he declared that Chile had imposed "a state of war" on Bolivia. Apparently this decree did not constitute a formal declaration of belligerence, which he announced on 18 March.

I find that:

• "imposed a state of war" is a sentence from Article 1 of the March 1. decree, ("mientras dure la guerra que ha promovido a Chile"). That means the original decree of the war is the 1. March decree and not the 27. February Manifesto as some editor insists to promote.
• The English word "apparently" has a ambiguous meaning in English. In German there are two words for this English word ("apparently" corresponds to either anscheinend or offensichtlich). "anscheinend" (=to seem?) means "It looks like red but it could be green" and "offensichtlich" (=obviously) means "it looks like red and it is red". We can have a never-ending discussion about which one should be used, but the sentence doesn't end there it continues and say which he announced on 18 March. What is the only possible meaning of the word "which"? Answer: "which" means "the formal declaration of belligerence". Now I ask you: Does Sater state that there was a Bolivian declaration of war?. YES. Sater states that Daza announced it (the formal declaration of war) on 18. March.
• Why the 18 March and not the 14 March?. He took the 18. March as we took the Chilean Declaration of Independence of the 18 February 1818 and not the other. For Desiderius Erasmus Birthdate Wikipedia takes 1466 as year.
• Sater says explicite that " Apparently this decree did not constitute a formal declaration of belligerence, which he announced on 18 March." That means a formal declaration of belligerence was announced on 18 March. I repeat the formal declaration of beligerance.
• Regarding "how we get from a decree carefully worded to avoid a declaration of war to a declaration of war on March 14 or March 18". That is pure WP:OR. That would be our personal interpretation of the 1. March decree. Believe me, the 1.March decree can be interpreted in different ways. The whole justice administration in every modern country, (senate, parlament, lobby, lawyers, judges, secretaries, universities, law schools, legal books editorials, notaries, policemen, attorneys, etc) is living from the interpretation of laws, decrees, rules, treaties, etc. Let the historians do the work. That are the English Wikipedia rules: no original reserch.

I think my "Bolivia declared war on 1. March" is better than "Bolivia declared the state of war" because:

• No historian says "Bolivia declared the state of war"
• "Bolivia declared the state of war" will be used by people with an ideological agenda to asserts that "Under international law there has been never a Bolivian declaration of war" and that is biased non-sense, WP:POV and WP:OR.

It is hard to believe that Wikipedia would change one of three core content policies, along with Neutral point of view and Verifiability. Would you accept that I write in the article my own interpretation of the secret alliance of Peru and Bolivia or of the 1.March decree?. I personally don't want to cooperate in a Wikipedia full of personal editor opinions. If I want to comunicate my opinion I would use a blog.

If we want to finish the discussion then we can use some thing like "In March Bolivia declared war on Chile". All 22 sources support it and no one contradict it.

--Best regards, Keysanger (what?) 10:34, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

@Alex, that's great! Farcau ought to have a good insight into this matter.

@Keysanger, you continue with your apologetic and cherry picked argument. You justify the alleged "errors" and once more only see what is convenient to your argument.

1. "Chile imposed a state of war on Bolivia" is not a declaration of war. Why? Because that's exactly what William F. Sater writes right after that statement. No WP:OR as you claim.
2. "Apparently" is being used quite effectively by Sater: (Paraphrase) "It's not March 1st, because it is March 18".
3. Sater does agree that there was a DoW, but the mere fact that he provides a different date contradicts your proposal to claim March 1st was the date the DoW took place. Not only that, but Sater goes as far as to disregard the March 1st decree even after writing that "Chile had imposed "a state of war" on Bolivia".
4. Your apologetic "analysis" of why a historian took one date over another is WP:OR. You're quick to claim it, but apparently don't know how to use it.
5. Sater, Caivano, Spence Robertson, Prudencio Lizon, and Abecia Baldivieso are actually quite clearly against a March 1st Bolivian DoW. So, Alex's comment is not WP:OR. Once again you're wrongly calling wolf.

Cheers.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 12:31, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Both Keysanger & Marshal are making valid points.

@Keysanger, I wouldn't say that "apparently" is ambiguous but it can communicate a lack of certainty. Here, Sater probably intends meaning (3) given in our wiktionary: according to what the speaker has read or been told. To me, it suggests that Sater previously believed that the March 1 decree was a formal declaration of war, and recently has learnt otherwise. It is interesting, to be sure, that he is a leading expert on the subject and he expresses uncertainty. It raises the question, how closely has even Sater studied this?

As far as using Wikipedia's voice to assert a March 1 declaration of war goes, I think you would have better luck arguing that March 14 is DoW; it seems the more reliable sources tend to that date or March 18.

Regarding what you wrote at my talk page I am afraid I can't believe that "announced on March 18" means "filed separately" - unless you have evidence from elsewhere of something being "filed" on March 18?

By the way, I just had another idea for a compromise wording. What if we said that on March 14 it was "formally announced that a state of war existed with Chile"? Alex Harvey (talk) 13:27, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

If I say yes, Keysanger will immediately say no. He is indirectly accusing me of having "an ideological agenda" (which goes against the WP:CONSPIRACY thing). With that mindset, no compromise can ever be achieved since every single attempt I make (and have made) for a compromise has been considered as part of an "ideological agenda".

I am willing to compromise with Alex's wording based on: (1) Bolivia made the announcement in Lima to foreign representatives and (2) the announcement was also provided to Chile's representative in Lima. Based on these 2 points, I can agree with the "formally announced that a state of war existed with Chile" on March 14 statement. Moreover, based on the sources provided, I am willing to compromise on the following as well:

News of the Chilean invasion reached Hilarión Daza on February 20, but he decided to postpone its mention until the end of ongoing carnival festitivities. On February 27, Daza made a public manifesto informing Bolivians about the invasion and calling for patriotic support. Later, on March 1, he issued a decree which prohibited all commerce and communications with Chile "while the state-of-war provoked upon Bolivia lasts", provided Chileans ten days to leave Bolivian territory unless gravely ill or handicapped, embargoed Chilean furniture, property, and mining produce, allowed Chilean mining companies to continue operating under a government-appointed administrator, and provided all embargoes as temporary "unless the hostilities exercised by Chilean forces requires an energetic retaliation from Bolivia". Chile interpreted the decree as a declaration of war, which historians and diplomats since then have considered a controversial decision as nowhere in the decree is war actually declared. Then, on March 14, Bolivia formally announced to representatives of foreign powers in Lima that a state of war now existed between herself and Chile; and called on Peru to activate the alliance treaty, arguing that the Chile's invasion constituted a casus foederis.

I hope this makes everyone happy. Do we have an agreement? Best of wishes.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 14:17, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Y I'll agree with your proposal @Marshall, and I hope than finally we can end this discussion without more "indirect" accusations of conspiracy. Greetings.Cloudaoc (talk) 16:59, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

To save Keysanger from objecting I would not support that proposal at all. That suggests that what is the orthodox view in most reliable sources (Bolivia declared war) is a Chilean POV, for which there is no evidence. Alex Harvey (talk) 00:50, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm basing the sentence on the Sivirichi and Caivano sources. I suppose what can be argued against it is that they're only 2 sources, but the evidence does exist. Unless any other idea can be presented, the last accepted paragraph (Proposal #2 in the RfC page) still stands as the option in contrast to Keysanger's proposal. EDIT: I'll add the "formally" word as Alex suggested into that proposal as well.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 01:35, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Hi Alex,

in your opinion, what means "which he announced on 18 March"? What means "which" in this sentence?. --Best regards, Keysanger (what?) 08:33, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

email response

Farcau has responded and said that from his experience in the Foreign Service, a declaration of war is usually dated from when it is communicated to the diplomatic community, and that's why he chose March 14. He says Sater is using March 18 because that's when Chile acknowledged it. February 27 is when the legislature authorised the declaration of war (=decree ?) and he feels that is probably an unimportant detail due to the fact that Daza was a dictator and didn't technically need legislative authorisation. I have pressed him for an opinion of the opposite view that Bolivia didn't declare war and asked for permission to reproduce the correspondence. Alex Harvey (talk) 15:09, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Awesome. I like how Farcau stands by his position on the March 14 date. It's also good to note that his March 18 explanation (for Sater) has nothing to do with the alleged "correspondence issues" mentioned by Keysanger.

It would be great if you could ask him the similarities/differences in formally declaring war upon a country (similar to how Chile declared war on Peru and Bolivia) and announcing a state of war to the diplomatic community. Even better, if you could ask him what wording he would use (present him both proposals) in the article: "Bolivia declared war on March 14" or "Bolivia announced a state of war to the diplomatic community in Lima on March 14". Best regards.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 15:33, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Great, well done Alex! --Best regards, Keysanger (what?) 14:47, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Farcau responded again without answering whether or not I can reproduce his correspondence - I suspect he doesn't have too much time to look at this and may not have noticed my question. Clearly he was not even aware that some believe that Bolivia didn't declare war - which I think for the purposes of Wikipedia is sufficient to establish this as a minority, possibly a fringe view. I presented him the four sources Marshal found that support his view and Farcau suggested that those holding this view must think that there needs to be a formal delivery of documents for an act to be a declaration of war. He said, however, there is no such historical requirement. He noted again that there was an act of legislation on Feb 27 authorising a declaration of war and an announcement on March 14 of the same. I have now asked if the text of the Act passed on Feb 27 survives. Alex Harvey (talk) 08:39, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

That Farcau was not aware of something (now he is) does not justify a fringe view. As I have mentioned countless of times, most of my sources are explicitly against Bolivia declaring war on March 1st (Hence why I have constantly been stating for the dates to be taken into better consideration). I have no sources which contradict any action of Bolivia in March 14. You should ask Farcau if he could provide another source which agrees with his February 27 Bolivian congress claim, as he is (so far in this discussion) the only known author to make such a declaration. Finally, it would also be great if you could please tell him which wording he would use in the article: "Bolivia announced a state of war" or "Bolivia declared war on Chile" for the March 14 date. My position is that the first one better fits the sources, but Farcau's opinion would pretty much "end the deal" in this case. Well, that is considering Keysanger loses his March 1st position.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 14:28, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Farcau responded again. I think it is clear he had never heard of an alternate view that Bolivia didn't declare war. He doesn't know whether the text of the act of legislation from Feb 27 has survived and pointed out that it is 11 years since he wrote The Ten Cents War and he no longer has access to his research materials. He also made an interesting point. If the March 1 decree is worded relative to a "state of war" that already existed, this is almost exactly the same as with the wording of FDR's declaration of war against Japan after Pearl Harbour. In other words, I think, he doesn't see a difference between "announcing that a state of war exists" and "declaring war".

Given that Farcau has conceded that he doesn't remember all the finer details and no longer has access to the research materials I don't wish to press him with further questions. I believe it is quite clear that he has vouched for his own wording that Bolivia formally declared war on March 14. Moreover he has resolved the issue of discrepancy of dates and I now see that nearly all of Keysanger's sources do support a wording that Bolivia declared war on March 14.

We could raise an RFC still I suppose but I am pretty sure it will simply bring in more support for the wording "Bolivia declared war". Alex Harvey (talk) 02:27, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Given the new evidence, I propose the following:

News of the Chilean military invasion reached Hilarión Daza on February 20, but he decided to postpone its mention until the end of ongoing carnival festitivities. On February 27, Daza made a public manifesto informing Bolivians about the invasion and calling for patriotic support. According to historian Bruce Farcau, that same day the Bolivian legislature authorized the president to make a formal declaration of war upon Chile. On March 1, Hilarión Daza issued a decree which prohibited all commerce and communications with Chile "while the state-of-war provoked upon Bolivia lasts", provided Chileans ten days to leave Bolivian territory unless gravely ill or handicapped, embargoed Chilean furniture, property, and mining produce, allowed Chilean mining companies to continue operating under a government-appointed administrator, and provided all embargoes as temporary "unless the hostilities exercised by Chilean forces requires an energetic retaliation from Bolivia". Finally, on March 14, Bolivia formally announced to representatives of foreign powers in Lima that Chile's aggression forced a state of war to exist between both nations; and called on Peru to activate the alliance treaty, arguing that Chile's invasion of Bolivia's coast constituted a casus foederis.

Since Farcau proposes that state of war=declaration of war, I wikilinked it. That is all. In any case, for one final example: (1) Formally announcing marriage in a meeting with several people to a certain person A is not the same as (2) declaring one's love to person A. In case 1 the person is announcing a situation to a group, but has not directly announced it to person A, while in case 2 a direct declaration is made. I don't agree with Farcau's interpretation, but given his position I find the wikilink to the DoW to be enough.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 02:51, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

How about

News of the invasion reached Hilarión Daza on February 20, but he decided to postpone mention of it until the end of the carnival festivities. On February 27, Daza made a public manifesto informing Bolivians and calling for patriotic support. According to historian Bruce Farcau, that same day the Bolivian legislature authorized a formal declaration of war upon Chile. On March 1, Daza issued a decree which prohibited all commerce and communications with Chile "while the state-of-war provoked upon Bolivia lasts", provided Chileans ten days to leave Bolivian territory unless gravely ill or handicapped, embargoed Chilean furniture, property, and mining produce, allowed Chilean mining companies to continue operating under a government-appointed administrator, and provided all embargoes as temporary "unless the hostilities exercised by Chilean forces requires an energetic retaliation from Bolivia". On March 14, Bolivia announced to representatives of foreign powers in Lima that a state of war now existed between both nations. Bolivia called on Peru to activate the alliance treaty, arguing that Chile's invasion constituted a casus foederis.

Alex Harvey (talk) 10:44, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Agree Shorter and to the point. I'm not happy to concede that Bolivia actually declared war, but I cannot oppose professional opinion. Hopefully in the future I shall be able to publish my own work on the matter. That being said, I suppose this will end this discussion? Has Keysanger said anything about losing his March 1st position or accepting Farcau's March 14 proposal? Thank you Alex for your dedication to improving this controversial article. Best of wishes.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 13:11, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

What if we go with this proposal here and then assert that on April 5 Chile reciprocated and declared war? That way we can avoid the dreaded words "Bolivia declared war" but we can also make it clear - as consistent with expert opinion - that Chile's April 5 declaration of war was a reciprocation of Bolivia's March 14 declaration. Would that satisfy Keysanger and could Marshal et al. live with that? Alex Harvey (talk) 14:06, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Considering Keysanger has not replied to any of these discussions, and considering he has read all of these things (after all, he has had the time to come up with several other "issues"), I am concluding that he probably will not agree with any of your proposals (regardless of who agrees with them).

Regarding Chile reciprocating war on April 5, I'd like to note the following: (1) Chile declared war based on Peru's decision to let its congress discuss whether they should remain neutral or honor the treaty with Bolivia; (2) Bolivia is the one which declared war in reciprocation to Chile's invasion of Bolivia; (3) Chile's invasion of Bolivia without a prior DoW shows how much respect they had for Bolivia as an independent nation; (4) If Chiton magnificus is correct and "Keysanger is systematically pushing War of the Pacific things in favour of Chile," then stating that Chile reciprocated Bolivia's war announcement is playing directly into Keysanger's game of placing Chile as the victim. Whether Chiton is right or wrong, at this point I don't know and I won't make any reckless accusation. However, as far as it concerns the 18 sources I presented a while back, Chile is the primary aggressor (Chile's DoW on Bolivia and Peru is only notable as it officially got Peru into the war; however, the war itself had already started by Chile's invasion of Antofagasta).--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 15:53, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

The home straight

Hi folks,

We have discussed all sides of this issue and we surely agree that:

• There was a Bolivian declaration of war
• the decree was issued 1. March, was confirmed for the powers accredited in Lima on 14. March and published in Santiago on 18. March. Acc. to B. Farcau on 27 February the B. legislative issued a authorization to Daza for the war against Chile.
• 20 out of 22 sources call the event "declaration of war" or "to declare war on Chile". The use "Bolivia declared the state of war" is unknown in the English language histography.
• Farcau has never heard about a "No Bolivian declaration of war". Probably another fringe theory.
• The United States declaration of war upon Japan 1941 uses the same wording as the Bolivian dow and it has been always considered a declaration of war: Declaring that a state of war exists between ….
• As the discussion began, in the article version [35] there was a mention of dows in the lede and in the "crisis" section.

Acording to this, unchallengeable, facts, my proposal is:

for "Lede":

On March 1 1879 Bolivia's dictator Daza declared war on Chile. Chile soon learned that Peru and Bolivia had a secret alliance. These revelations resulted on April 5 in a Chilean declaration of war on Peru and Bolivia after Peru refused to declare neutrality.

for "Crisis":

According to historian Bruce Farcau, on February 27 Bolivian legislature issued an authorization for a declaration of war. On March 1, Daza issued a declaration of war in La Paz. Then, on March 14 Bolivia's foreign minister Serapio Reyes Ortiz announced in Lima to representatives of foreign powers that a state of war now existed between herself and Chile and called on Peru to activate the alliance treaty, arguing that the Chile's invasion constituted a casus foederis.

After the Bolivian declaration of war was published in Santiago on March 18, Peru's envoy Lavalle recognized the existence of the secret treaty and the Chilean government asked Peru to remain neutral. As the Peruvian government responded that Lima intended to honor its commitments to Bolivia, Chile declared the war on Peru and Bolivia on April 5.

Regarding the dreaded words, please remember that 20 out of 22 sources use the "dreaded words" "Bolivia declare/d war on Chile" or "Bolivian declaration of war". Do we want to censorship this sources?.

I see no issue to be discussed, the English text is OK, reviewed.

I would appreciate to stopp personal attacks and to concentrate in the solution of the problem.

--Best regards, Keysanger (what?) 15:50, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

1. You stubbornly keep cherry-picking the sources.
2. You stubbornly keep the same proposal over-and-over again without even paying the most minimal attention to what Alex Harvey suggests (you go as far as to cherry-pick his own statements).
3. Other than calling you stubborn (based on provable evidence), no personal attack has been made on you. On the other hand, you have accused me of: (1) stupidity, (2) source falsification, and (3) conspiracy. I am absolutely tired of your position and disgusted with your pretentions to make Chile look like a victim, a claim made upon your actions both by users Cambalechero and Chiton magnificus. Unless you cease your stubborn position, no improvement will be made on this article.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 21:57, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree that this latest proposal - to repeat four times that Bolivia declared war - presents an appearance of little interest in reaching an amicable compromise. Alex Harvey (talk) 14:25, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Other proposal:

for "Lede":

On March 1 1879 Bolivia's dictator Daza declared war on Chile. Chile soon learned that Peru and Bolivia had a secret alliance. These revelations resulted on April 5 in a Chilean declaration of war on Peru and Bolivia after Peru refused to declare neutrality.

for "Crisis":

On March 1, Daza issued a declaration of war in La Paz. Then, on March 14 Bolivia's foreign minister Serapio Reyes Ortiz announced in Lima to representatives of foreign powers that a state of war now existed between herself and Chile and called on Peru to activate the alliance treaty, arguing that the Chile's invasion constituted a casus foederis.

After the Bolivian declaration was published in Santiago on March 18, Peru's envoy Lavalle recognized the existence of the secret treaty and the Chilean government asked Peru to remain neutral. As the Peruvian government responded that Lima intended to honor its commitments to Bolivia, Chile declared the war on Peru and Bolivia on April 5.

Once in lede and once in crisis, as much as Chile. Peru's dow is not mentioned. OK?. --Best regards, Keysanger (what?) 18:09, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

So, Alex took the trouble to talk to Farcau for no reason. I have conceded to Bolivia announcing a state of war on March 14 (even wikilinked the DoW article on "state of war"), which is what Farcau explained, and yet you keep pushing your March 1st position. I honestly don't understand you at all.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 20:12, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes I'm confused too. I thought we all agreed that the DoW was March 14. Alex Harvey (talk) 01:13, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

That is no problem for a English writer like me:

for "Lede":

On March 14 1879 Bolivia declared war on Chile. Chile soon learned that Peru and Bolivia had a secret alliance. These revelations resulted on April 5 in a Chilean declaration of war on Peru and Bolivia after Peru refused to declare neutrality.

for "Crisis":

On March 14 the Bolivian special plenipotentiary in Peru, foreign minister Serapio Reyes Ortiz announced Bolivia's declaration of war on Chile, dated March 1 by circular note, to the diplomatic Corps accredited to Lima and called on Peru to activate the alliance treaty, arguing that Chile's invasion constituted a casus foederis.

After the Bolivian declaration was published in Santiago on March 18, Peru's envoy Lavalle recognized the existence of the secret treaty and the Chilean government asked Peru to remain neutral. As the Peruvian government responded that Lima intended to honor its commitments to Bolivia, Chile declared the war on Peru and Bolivia on April 5. Peru reciprocated on 6. April

--Best regards, Keysanger (what?) 19:19, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

I like my lead proposal in "Issue 16: Occupation/Invasion" better, and I also like Alex's Crisis section proposal better.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 01:21, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Keysanger, write a proposal that refers once to a Bdow. You obviously know (based on your issue titled "repeated" below) that repeated references to the Bdow bias the article towards overemphasis of it. Please observe that Sater regarded the March 1 decree as a "symbolic gesture" and not a formal declaration of war so let's let go this obsession with a March 1 Bdow and use March 14. Update the draft RFC with your proposal & please Marshal do likewise. Then we bring in outside opinions that should favour Keysanger's proposal. I don't want to discuss this any more. Alex Harvey (talk) 03:43, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Sure thing.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 05:35, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Missing Alex's proposal

Hi Alex,

Would you please explain your claim?. My proposal includes one mention of the Bdow in the lede and one mention of the Bdow in the "crisis" section. And that is so much as the Chilean dow is mentioned in the lede and in the section "crisis". Would you be so kind to write a proposal that you can support and that mention the Bolivian declaration of war and don't hide it?. --Best regards, Keysanger (what?) 13:15, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Your proposal refers twice to a Bdow - I'll use the bold font:

On March 14 the Bolivian special plenipotentiary in Peru, foreign minister Serapio Reyes Ortiz announced Bolivia's declaration of war on Chile, dated March 1 by circular note, to the diplomatic Corps accredited to Lima and called on Peru to activate the alliance treaty, arguing that Chile's invasion constituted a casus foederis.

After the Bolivian declaration was published in Santiago on March 18, Peru's envoy Lavalle recognized the existence of the secret treaty and the Chilean government asked Peru to remain neutral. As the Peruvian government responded that Lima intended to honor its commitments to Bolivia, Chile declared the war on Peru and Bolivia on April 5. Peru reciprocated on 6. April

Alex Harvey (talk) 13:49, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

And your proposal? How can we get a rid of? --Best regards, Keysanger (what?) 14:17, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

I am attempting to mediate in this dispute - not have opinions of my own. If you wanted to get rid of the second "declaration" you could reword it "On March 18, Peru's envoy Lavalle recognized the existence of the secret treaty and the Chilean government asked Peru to remain neutral. As the Peruvian government responded that Lima intended to honor its commitments to Bolivia, Chile declared war on Peru and Bolivia on April 5. On April 6, Peru reciprocated". I think either proposal is fine and both communicate to the reader the same obvious facts: (1) Chile invaded Antofagasta; (2) Daza responded by declaring war. No matter how much either of you try to spin the matter the same facts are going to be understood. Alex Harvey (talk) 06:12, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Our problem is wording. I deleted from my original proposal the 27. February thing, the details of the 1. March decree, the hint to the carnival festivities and I don't intent to overvalue (repeat) the Bolivian declaration of war. That is no problem for me. Here is my proposal:

for "Lede":

On March 14 1879 Bolivia declared war on Chile. Chile soon learned that Peru and Bolivia had a secret alliance. These revelations resulted on April 5 in a Chilean declaration of war on Peru and Bolivia after Peru refused to declare neutrality.

for "Crisis":

On March 14 the Bolivian special plenipotentiary in Peru, foreign minister Serapio Reyes Ortiz announced Bolivia's declaration of war on Chile, dated March 1 by circular note, to the diplomatic Corps accredited to Lima and called on Peru to activate the alliance treaty, arguing that Chile's invasion constituted a casus foederis.

On March 18, Peru's envoy Lavalle recognized the existence of the secret treaty and the Chilean government asked Peru to remain neutral. As the Peruvian government responded that Lima intended to honor its commitments to Bolivia, Chile declared the war on Peru and Bolivia on April 5. Peru reciprocated on 6. April 1879.

short and well balanced. --Best regards, Keysanger (what?) 10:29, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

It might be short but if Marshal or others want to include the extra information - e.g. that Daza worded his decree relative to a preexisting state of war provoked upon him - how can you stop them? You can't - that's how. So why make a proposal that departs so radically from Marshal's? Alex Harvey (talk) 16:40, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

For example because MarshallN20's proposal doesn't include that Bolivia/Daza declared war on Chile as asserted by 22 reliable sources and Farcau confirmed it. Please, don't ask me to repeat this again.

There are rules about how to write an article and every one has to obey it. It is possible to write write why Daza declared war, but then we have to write why the other side occupied the port and if we say that 10 cents is too less, then we have to say that there was a treaty and so on and so on. Do we want to explain the whole crisis in only one paragraph?. I think no. We do it cronologically.

If we can't get an agreement, then we can post a RfC. But, honestly, I don't know what should be discussed there. We got finally all facts out on the table. We have only a wording problem.

--Best regards, Keysanger (what?) 23:42, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

You are not listening. So far, the dispute has been about whether or not Bolivia declared war. You wanted the article to say that Bolivia declared war. A reasonable alternative is still to say that "Bolivia announced that a state of war now existed". That is reasonable because, according to Farcau, it means the same thing. You are not happy with this, because you want the words "declared war". So why must you now compound the disagreement? Your new proposal removes all discussion of the contents of Daza's decree. We now have two problems: (1) declaration of war vs state of war; (2) include or exclude discussion of Daza's decree. If you disagree with Marshal's proposal - which we arrived at with input from a number of editors including yourself - you should tweak his proposal - not rewrite it with something completely different. Alex Harvey (talk) 10:21, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Here is an obvious alternative to the last proposal I made if we must use the words "declared war":

News of the invasion reached Hilarión Daza on February 20, but he postponed mention of it until the end of the carnival festivities. On February 27, Daza made a public manifesto informing Bolivians and calling for patriotic support. According to Bruce Farcau, the same day the Bolivian legislature authorized a formal declaration of war upon Chile. On March 1, Daza issued a decree which prohibited all commerce and communications with Chile "while the state-of-war provoked upon Bolivia lasts", provided Chileans ten days to leave Bolivian territory unless gravely ill or handicapped, embargoed Chilean furniture, property, and mining produce, allowed Chilean mining companies to continue operating under a government-appointed administrator, and provided all embargoes as temporary "unless the hostilities exercised by Chilean forces requires an energetic retaliation from Bolivia". On March 14, Bolivia declared war in an announcement of the March 1 decree to representatives of foreign powers in Lima. Bolivia called on Peru to activate the alliance treaty, arguing that Chile's invasion constituted a casus foederis.

Alex Harvey (talk) 12:05, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

I assume that your proposal includes my lede and second paragraph of "Crisis". In this case I agree. Agree . --Best regards, Keysanger (what?) 14:17, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't agree with mentioning the following ("in an announcment of the March 1 decree"), because only one source actually states it.

The second thing, which I think Keysanger doesn't understand, is the way in which Bolivia "declared war" on Chile. The Bolivian POV at the time (From Daza and company) is that they were simply stating to the foreign representatives a given fact (Chile invaded the Litoral, therefore war existed). However, according to the explanation provided by Dr. Bruce Farcau, "announcing a state of war with country x" to foreign diplomats is, in essence, the same thing as a declaration of war. My (MarshalN20's) POV is that they are not the same, but I have agreed to concede that they are based on Farcau's expertise on the subject. That being accepted, it is appropiate to state that "Bolivia announced a state of war", but provide a wikilink to "state of war" (or "announced a state of war") to Declaration of war. Bolivia never actually word-by-word "declare war", and this is mainly because, as both Alex Harvey and other users have noted, Hilarion Daza kept playing around with words and avoided making any statement which could be taken as a word-by-word declaration of war.

In conclusion, Keysanger is still on the position that "announcing a state of war" =/= "declaration of war". However, Dr. Farcau has brought forth the position that they are essentially the same. Dr. Farcau's position holds more weight than Keysanger's position. I accept Farcau's position, Alex accepts Farcau's position, Cloudaoc agrees with the proposal based on Farcau's position (which Alex presented prior to this last one). Thereupon, I believe this discussion should be ended, the article edited with the information based on Farcau's proposal, and, if Keysanger keeps trying to change it despite the general consensus, he should be reported to the Administrator's noticeboard. That is the quickest way to end this discussion, and put an end to the story.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 13:54, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Here is the last proposal. I have edited the sentence of March 14 to include "announced a state of war" into the wikilink of "declaration of war".

News of the invasion reached Hilarión Daza on February 20, but he decided to postpone mention of it until the end of the carnival festivities. On February 27, Daza made a public manifesto informing Bolivians and calling for patriotic support. According to historian Bruce Farcau, that same day the Bolivian legislature authorized a formal declaration of war upon Chile. On March 1, Daza issued a decree which prohibited all commerce and communications with Chile "while the state-of-war provoked upon Bolivia lasts", provided Chileans ten days to leave Bolivian territory unless gravely ill or handicapped, embargoed Chilean furniture, property, and mining produce, allowed Chilean mining companies to continue operating under a government-appointed administrator, and provided all embargoes as temporary "unless the hostilities exercised by Chilean forces requires an energetic retaliation from Bolivia". On March 14, in a meeting with foreign powers in Lima, Bolivia announced a state of war with Chile. Bolivia called on Peru to activate the alliance treaty, arguing that Chile's invasion constituted a casus foederis.

This is my last attempt for a complete agreement from everyone. Hopefully it will achieve this purpose.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 14:01, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Keysanger, your second paragraph would replace the entire section "Peruvian mediation". The RFC will be about "should the article say 'Bolivia declared war' or 'Bolivia announced that a state of war now existed'. I would like to change my bolded sentence above to On March 14, Bolivia declared war in an announcement to representatives of foreign powers in Lima. If you are happy with that suggestion, I will start a new thread below and raise the RFC. Alex Harvey (talk) 11:39, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

I agree to post a RfC with the question should the article say "Bolivia declared war" or "Bolivia announced that a state of war now existed". I would suggest us to concentrate on the declaration of war issue and not to overload the new thread with additional statements. --Best regards, Keysanger (what?) 07:05, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes I agree. Unless Marshal objects I'll change the RFC draft accordingly. Alex Harvey (talk) 08:55, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't object.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 12:17, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Here is my simpler RFC draft. We would then line up Keysanger's 17 sources against Marshal's 4 underneath. Is everyone happy with this? Alex Harvey (talk) 12:53, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

I disagree.

We agree about "should the article say "Bolivia declared war" or "Bolivia announced that a state of war now existed". Nothing about the 14 March. If we discuss about the 14 then we have to discuss about the 27, the 1. and then about 18. That will never end.

Which 17 and 4 sources did you choose?. I count 19 "declared war"'s. I included the repetition of country-data.com and globalsecurity.com. Please, tell me which are the 4 "reliable" sources of MarshalN20. I counted only 3.

In order to get a equal and fair presentation, please delete all wikilinks from the text. --Best regards, Keysanger (what?) 14:40, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

I think your RFC draft is good. I only disagree with claiming Keysanger has "17 sources" favoring his position as only a handful actually relate to the March 14 date. The rest of the sources either attribute a different date or something in general.

I don't understand Keysanger's position. It seems that which "will never end" is his own confusion about the dates. I'm assuming everyone else has already understood why it is important to mention the dates.

Finally, the wikilink is an important part of my proposal as it is based on Dr. Farcau's position of "announcing state of war = declaration of war" (in essence). I don't understand why Keysanger claims it to be unfair or unequal.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 21:12, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

@Keysanger

• there may be 18 as I may have forgotten to include the Skuban source we found at the end. Obviously, counting the same source twice just because you happened to find it at two URLs is inappropriate (so country-data & globalsecurity only count as 1 source).
• we can drop "March 14" from your proposal and leave it in for Marshal's I suppose.
• Marshal's 4 sources include 3 non contemporary works and 1 historian published in an opinion column La Razon. We will note in the discussion these caveats with Marshal's sources and likewise any caveats with your own sources.
• agree with Marshal that the Wikilink is an inherent part of Marshal's proposal and can't be removed. I can "no wiki" it if you like.

@Marshal

• We now understand the discrepancy in the dates - Feb 27 is the day the legislature passed an act, Mar 1 this was announced as an internal decree, Mar 14 it was announced to the diplomatic corp and Mar 18 it was acknowledged/published in Chile. It becomes a technicality as to how the DoW is dated in historical sources. Thus all of Keysanger's 18 or so sources support the basic proposition that Bolivia declared war. If you still don't agree then you are free to make a disclaimer underneath the RFC declaring yourself as an involved party but I think it would be misleading to suggest that Keysanger's only support are those sources that explicity refer to a March 14 DoW.

So can we proceed on this basis? Alex Harvey (talk) 06:49, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Which part of the User:Alexh19740110/Draft RfC Bdow is the correct RfC?.

What about "proposal #1", "proposal #2", and the first "Discussion". What is "Invasion of Litoral Department (The War)"?. The trash isn't needed and should be erased before.

It must be said wich are the sources (bookname, author, page, publisher) and the relevant text passages in order the editors self can decide about the credibility of the statement. The Peruvian newspaper "La Razon" is not the same as "Andean Tragedy" of Sater. So we will avoid embarrassing discussions during the debate of the draft. I added already my 19 sources. I hope you agree.

Before I agree and in order to avoid mistake we should erase any divagations (obsolete proposals, old discussions, funny list of sources, never existed invasions) from the RfC draft, add MarshalN20's list of sources, update the final draft proposal and add a wikilink to "Bolivia declared war on Chile".

I will use this oportunity to thank you for your tenacious efforts to resolve the question and to assure you my complete support.

--Best regards, Keysanger (what?) 07:59, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

I disagree with your perspective, Alex. A source which states, "Bolivia declared war on March 18" should not be used to support a statement which claims that "Bolivia declared war on March 14." The only way all 19 sources could "support" Keysanger's proposal would be if all dates were erased (which is what he wants to do, apparently).

Refering to extra content in the RfC as "the trash" is really insulting. I also don't understand why Keysanger keeps complaining about Peru's "La Razon" and why this is even relevant on this discussion. In any case, I don't understand many of the things he does.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 12:53, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes I agree that the insults are most unhelpful.

@Keysanger,

• I have gone through your list and found 17 sources again although there is a Skuban source you can add somewhere. You were counting Sater twice - two separate books by Sater should not be counted as two reliable sources because they're from the same author. You were also counting Lavalle - a primary source. While it's fair enough to make a note of what Lavalle says, it's not reasonable to also count Lavalle in your tally.
• The plan is to copy the second draft section of the RFC to the bottom of this talk page and then mark it as an active RFC. So no one will see the earlier proposals.

@ Marshal:

• I still don't agree. It seems that this would be to use a technicality to disqualify a source. You made an example of marriage earlier so I'll extend your example. Imagine two people were married on March 1 but for whatever reason they didn't sign the marriage contract until March 14. Some people are going to say they were married on March 1 because that's the date they had the wedding. Others will say that, technically, they were married on March 14 because that's the date they signed the marriage contract. All sources, nonetheless, could be used to support the basic proposition that the two people were married. Anyhow, as I say, your objection can be noted in the discussion so that uninvolved editors see it.

Alex Harvey (talk) 15:26, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Hi Alex,

you are right regarding the second book of Sater.

But I corrected a little error: the given page 129 of the first book belongs actually to another book of Sater and Collier A history of Chile, 1808-2002. Since in the book is also another author, Collier, involved, it is fair to include it.

The book of Lavalle includes an exhaustive study (65 pages) of Lavalle's mediation by the Peruvian historian Félix Denegri Luna ([36]). This part is a secondary source and can be used in Wikipedia. It contains very important infomation e.g. about the post and telegraph lines in use and the delay of the news, besides the date of the BDOW. I think it must be added.

I also added Skuba. I think 17 or 19 are enough. If someone arise doubt then I can deliver another 10 sources.

OK, we will use Farcau's date for the BDOW.

I agree. --Best regards, Keysanger (what?) 21:13, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

I trust your explanation Alex, so I will back down from my position. Nonetheless, if it doesn't bother anyone, I would like to raise one small question to the RfC: Should the dates be mentioned in the paragraph or not? Keysanger is against, but other users are in favor of presenting the dates. I suppose this is a great time to also put that to an end with a comment. Best of wishes.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 00:16, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

I think Keysanger is only against confusing the RFC with mention of the dates. Keysanger has just said he is happy to use Farcau's date for the BDOW. So I think we're all in agreement on that point and no need to add it to the RFC. Alex Harvey (talk) 05:53, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

I agree to mention the dates in the paragraph. --Best regards, Keysanger (what?) 09:20, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Hi Alex,

MarshalN2's list of sources states that there was "not a formal declaration of war". But the question is wheter the article should say " Bolivia announced that a state of war now existed with Chile".

Farcau says that to declare a state of war is that same as to declare a war, but MarshalN2 says it is not a declaration of war. Do you understand?. --Best regards, Keysanger (what?) 16:54, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Two lists of sources exist. The first, with 6, states that no Declaration of War took place. The second, with 16, directly supports the wording "state of war" either by sourcing that Daza/Bolivia announced/proclaimed a state of war, or stating that a state of war existed given the Chilean invasion/blockade of Antofagasta.

Dr. Farcau's explanation is not being contested. However, it should be noted that Chile's invasion of Bolivia's Litoral Department is also, in essence, a declaration of war.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 02:08, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

It's high time for the RfC

Hi Alex,

I think it's high time for the RfC. Let's other editors say a word.

MarshalN20's undecidedness has to do with the difficulties of his undertaking.

He wants actually say that there wasn't a Bolivian Declaration of War at all. But, there is no evidence supporting his theory. 4 out of 5 of his sources are biased Peruvian or Bolivian unknown historians trying to push their nacionalistic POV by hook or by crook. Richard Gibbs statement was given on 12 March 1879, that is before the announcement on 14 March.

In order to evade this hard facts, he seems to be ready to accept the "declare state of war" option and hopes then, by means of semantics and sophisms, to transform the "declare state of war" in a "it is not a Declaration of War" as intended already (Bolivia never actually word-by-word "declare war").

Probably, he knows that it will not work and therefore he is unsteady. What can we do to help MarshalN20?. Let's get it over with!. --Best regards, Keysanger (what?) 12:50, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Your patronizing attitude is insulting, to say the least. When will you be ready to discuss things without insulting me?

There was no actual declaration of war. All Bolivia did was announce to the international community that a state of war existed. In technical terms, it's not the same thing. That's the basic point. As I made my explanation to Alex, the letters "A" and "a" are (in essence) the same thing, but technically they are not. Therefore, Dr. Farcau is correct in stating that announcing a state of war is essentially the same as a declaration of war, but technical differences do exist.

I don't even know why I bother explaining this to you.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 14:22, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes agree again about the insults. What Keysanger seems oblivious to is the more he talks like this the more other editors will support Marshal's proposal - which is quite reasonable anyway.

@Marshal, I have struck quite a number of your sources from the "supports 'state of war'" list because they simply don't relate to what we are discussing. After war is declared, of course a "state of war" exists until the end of the war. See the Mirriam-Webster's defintion of "state of war" a : a state of actual armed hostilities regardless of a formal declaration of war b : a legal state created and ended by official declaration regardless of actual armed hostilities and usually characterized by operation of the rules of war. So it can mean either. I also agree that while the Gibbs source definitely says that the March 1 decree wasn't a declaration of war, it obviously doesn't contain his opinion about the March 14 announcement. So I believe you still have only 4 sources and it should be described as a "minority view". Alex Harvey (talk) 14:54, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

One last Compromise

The best solution to this discussion remains that of having everyone be happy with the product. The RfC will, ultimately, arbitrarily determine one point or the other. For the sake of whatever may be left of "Good Faith" in this discussion, I propose we combine both competing concepts into one. The following is my attempt at such a combination:

News of the invasion reached Hilarión Daza on February 20, but he decided to postpone mention of it until the end of the carnival festivities. On February 27, Daza made a public manifesto informing Bolivians and calling for patriotic support. According to historian Bruce Farcau, that same day the Bolivian legislature authorized a formal declaration of war upon Chile. On March 1, Daza issued a decree which prohibited all commerce and communications with Chile "while the state-of-war provoked upon Bolivia lasts", provided Chileans ten days to leave Bolivian territory unless gravely ill or handicapped, embargoed Chilean furniture, property, and mining produce, allowed Chilean mining companies to continue operating under a government-appointed administrator, and provided all embargoes as temporary "unless the hostilities exercised by Chilean forces requires an energetic retaliation from Bolivia". On March 14, Bolivian foreign minister Serapio Reyes Ortiz essentially declared war through an announcement to foreign representatives in Lima of Bolivia's state of war with Chile. Bolivia called on Peru to activate the alliance treaty, arguing that Chile's invasion constituted a casus foederis.

Is this an agreement for all parties?--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 21:25, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

That's not going to work. "Essentially" is a weasel word. Alex Harvey (talk) 00:53, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

I've taken it to the Language Board. The discussion can be followed here [37].--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 02:03, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Hi MarshalN20, I disagree your proposal because "essentially" is a weasel word.

I want to remember to other editors that User:Alexh19740110/Draft RfC Bdow isn't a personal sandbox but a draft to be jointly prepared and that every change has to be presented to discussion and approved. I beg the person who wrote the comment under the text of the RfC to move his comment to this talk page or to delete it. Thanks in advance. --Best regards, Keysanger (what?) 08:24, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

I was alerted to this issue at the Language Reference Desk. As I understand these events, it seems not quite right to say outright that "Bolivia declared war". While the Bolivian legislature had authorized a war declaration, it had not actually voted to declare war. Likewise, the Bolivian authorities do not seem to have made a formal declaration of war. Rather, their announcement that war had broken out was interpreted by others as a declaration of war. So, I think that Bolivia did not declare war directly or intentionally. Rather, its actions were interpreted to amount to a declaration of war. In this context, I don't think "essentially" is the best word. Essentially refers to essence, or the intrinsic and fundamental nature of a thing. The intrinsic or fundamental nature of Bolivia's action was not to declare war; rather, its essence was to inform the diplomatic community of the state of hostilities and to request the assistance of its ally. However, its effect was to create the impression that war had been declared. Therefore, I would replace "essentially" with "in effect". Marco polo (talk) 14:01, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Hello. I am a professor of Latin American history at Texas A&M University. "MarshalN20" asked me to post up my opinion on the subject. If you don't mind, I would like to keep my status as anonymous. I have studied and taught the "War of the Pacific" (I prefer the name "Saltpeter War") in my course curriculum at the university. Something which could possibly help you resolve this matter is understanding the different perspectives in the conflict. The government of Chile attributed Hilarion Daza's decree of March 1st as a declaration of war, which is what they later published in Santiago on March 18. That is their view on the subject, and it should be mentioned in the article per se. Chile then published their opinion on circular notes, and effectively managed to "manipulate" (If you don't mind the word) the Western world's opinion in favor of their interpretation. However, a dissenting opinion has always existed. I provided "MarshalN20" with the Richard Gibbs source. Gibbs was ambassador to Peru during these years, and is an excellent first-hand source of the conflict. As I suppose you know by now, Gibbs explained to the US government that Bolivia's March 1st decree was not a declaration of war. Other sources exist which also provide this opinion (I think some have been provided already). Bruce Farcau and William Sater have been the most prominent modern American historians to also identify the March 1st decree as a "no declaration of war", but Italian Caivano also had this opinion way back in the day. Yes, it was a violent decree that deeply hurt Chile's national pride (Chile felt insulted that Bolivia, a "backwards nation" would dare kick out Chilean citizens); but it was not a declaration of war (I would not even consider it "informal"). Now to March 14. Peru had requested Bolivia to keep quiet while Peruvian mediators worked out the issue, and Bolivia "promised" (probably had their fingers crossed) that it would not make noise. Yet, on March 14 the Bolivian representative in Peru made an announcement to the diplomatic body in Lima (which included America, France, England), in which they formally announced the existence of a state of war with Chile. Announcing = declaring, they are both synonyms. The difference is, yet again, in the perspective given the historical context. Remember that Bolivia saw itself as the "victim" (arguably, they were just as guilty of the situation; Peru seems to be the only one that actually wanted peace, but even that's arguable), and Chile as the "aggressor". Farcau attributes this as a declaration of war, and up to a certain point he is right. Why? Because publicly "announcing a state of war" has, historically speaking, always been the "substitute" to declaring war when the nation making the announcement feels as the victim. Two examples: When Japan attacked Pearl Harbor, the United States consequently announced a state of war with Japan. A little closer to this conflict, the Chaco War, Paraguay felt that Bolivia was invading its territory, so they also announced the existence of a state of war with Bolivia. In this Saltpeter War case, I believe that the best solution is to use the exact wording presented by the Bolivians (In any case, it makes little difference, but it provides a "correct" context of the situation). Anyone who reads that "Bolivia announced the existence of a state of war" is going to know what it means. Chile did not interpret this March 14 announcement as a declaration of war (remember that they took the March 1st decree for that). The questions you may ask: Why did Bolivia do it? They wanted to prevent Chile from obtaining war materials. Did it work? No; nobody really took Bolivia seriously. Why is it important? This is when Bolivia publicly asked Peru to honor their alliance; basically, it "killed" the Peruvian diplomatic mission in Chile. Suspicions existed in Chile that Peru and Bolivia had an alliance, but the public did not know for certain until Bolivia admitted it (The Chilean government already knew about it, of course). Later Chile published the March 1 decree in Santiago on March 18, and that further angered Chileans. It all adds up to Chile's final demand (an "ultimatum" if you want) on Peru to step away from the matter ("declare its neutrality"), and Peru (for whatever foolish reason) responded that they would let their Congress decide both proposals (honor the alliance or accept Chile's demand for neutrality). Then you have the April 5 declarations of war (Chile made 2 separate declarations, one for Peru and another for Bolivia), and the start of the blockades and full-scale campaigns. War, of course, started when Chilean troops took Antofagasta; but afterwards there was this "war of words" period which ended up complicating the situation more than helping resolve it. This may be too long, but I hope it helps resolve your problems. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.91.173.221 (talk) 15:02, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Agree Thank you professor for your intervention in this important discussion, and your explanation about the so-called Bdow is quite clear (at least for me), so, I'll agree completely with your explanation and this should be inserted in the article to keep it with a NPOV. Greetings. Cloudaoc (talk) 15:13, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

I would also like to thank the professor for the helpful suggestions. I take this as a strong vote in favour of the compromise proposal "On March 14, Daza announced that a state of war existed with Chile". I would like to repeat what the professor has just said, "Anyone who reads that 'Bolivia announced the existence of a state of war' is going to know what it means". It ought to satisfy informed Chilean and Peruvian/Bolivian readers alike. Maybe have some time to think about this. Alex Harvey (talk) 16:24, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't see any new facts in the contribution. All sources given in the long contribution (Gibbs, Farcau, Sater and Caivano) has been already in discussion for a long time and without published works his interpretations are original research. --Best regards, Keysanger (what?) 16:53, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Keysanger, obviously there is no new facts, and the professor suggestions can't be discarded as original research because he isn't a Wikipedian editor. Cloudaoc (talk) 17:00, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Hi Cloudaoc,

What do you think is this, and that?. They are editions made by an Wikipedia editor.

We have already established that there are no new sources. Caivano is a Italian inmigrant in Peru and an ardent Anti-Chilean writer. We know that Sater (page 39 Thus, Daza's declaration of war was a godsend also page 42 in March he suddenly declared war on Chile) as well as Farcau (page 42: although the formal declaration would not be forthcomming until 14 March. page 43 Lavalle departed Lima on 22 February, well before the Bolivian declaration of war, but nothing irreversible was to occur for some time... and in page 44 ...Word have now reached Santiago of the Bolivian declaration of war, and, ..) use the wording "declaration of war" and Gibbs's statement was written on 12 March, two days before the announcement in Lima.

Is it worth to go through the interpretations given by the incognito editor?. I think no. We have heard every one of them at least once from editor MarshalN20. I will not bore you repeating the chain of interpretations, suggestions and claims done without any source as reference. They are simply original research and has been refuted with reliable sources, page, author and relevant passage of the text.

I would suggest to initiate the RfC. --Best regards, Keysanger (what?) 18:14, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

I cite, T.Caivano, page 77:

• Para quien conoce el carácter de los chilenos, es indudable que no se hubieran atrevido á hacer y decir cuanto hicieron y dijeron contra Italia y los italianos, si hubiesen comparecido en las aguas del Pacífico un par, no más, de buenos buques italianos. ¡Oh cómo hubieran sido entonces mansos y melifluos!

How neutral is Caivano?. --Best regards, Keysanger (what?) 19:00, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Inadvertedly, we have had a series of RfC's from people uninvolved to the discussion. According to WP:RFC, "Requests for comment (RfC) is an informal, lightweight process for requesting outside input, and dispute resolution, with respect to article content, user conduct, and Wikipedia policy and guidelines." We have received the outside input from:

1. User:Marco polo ("The intrinsic or fundamental nature of Bolivia's action was not to declare war; rather, its essence was to inform the diplomatic community of the state of hostilities and to request the assistance of its ally. However, its effect was to create the impression that war had been declared.")
2. User:Tagishsimon ("I see that "that same day the Bolivian legislature authorized a formal declaration of war upon Chile", so that appears to be the declaration of war concern covered to any reasonable level of satisfaction.")

These users have expressed their opinion on the subject, and they all agree in some form or another that "Bolivia announced a state of war" is good (or not even necessary).

Moreover, I agree with Alex and the Texas A&M professor (whose privacy should be respected) in that "Anyone who reads that 'Bolivia announced the existence of a state of war' is going to know what it means". He has contributed a professional opinion on the matter, a valid suggestion, and it makes little sense for Keysanger to attack him.

Finally, Keysanger's attack on Caivano is nothing more than an ad hominem fallacy. The statement you cite from him is in response to Chile's attack (including murder) of Italian immigrants living in Peru. This includes Chilean troops murdering unarmed Italian firemen. Hence why Caivano writes that "if a couple of Italian ships were in the waters of the Pacific" then the situation would have been different.

Along with the 2 univolved editors, we can also add the opinions of Cambalechero, Cloudaoc, Alex, myself, and even Dr. Bruce Farcau. All of us see the statement "Bolivia announced a state of war" as sufficient and understandable.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 20:17, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Exactly, we are not obligated to satisfy Keysanger's requirements about the content of the article, because no one can own it. All of us agree that the statement "Bolivia announced a state of war" is not only clear, but also a well-proven and documented fact. As everyone here, Keysanger must accept the general consensus about this issue. GreetingsCloudaoc (talk) 21:58, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

In my mind, the professor's input has added new facts, namely, (1) that Chile's version of history had the March 1 decree as a declaration of war and moreover that Chile did not see the March 14 announcement as a DoW. (2) It adds a professional opinion to support what I privately suspected, i.e. that Western historians have probably passed on the Chilean version without critical examination. E.g. Farcau apparently wasn't aware of an alternative view, and Skuban conceded that the matter was completely outside the scope of his own investigation. I would say that it is likely that Sater used the word "apparently" because he too had only recently become aware of Gibbs and the view that the March 1 decree was not a DoW after all. Finally, I would like to point out that Marshal's compromise wording really is a compromise; that is, it is a big departure from what he originally wanted to say (i.e. that there was no Bolivian declaration of war). I believe that sooner or later we are going to have to accept that our compromise is the best wording we can come up with. Alex Harvey (talk) 06:36, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Hi Alex,

I disagree with you. What do you mean with "professional opinion"?. Can you tell me wich are the works published by 165.91.173.221?. It is for me the opinion of a Wikipedia editor, no more and no less. You know very well the Wikipedia rules. I cite WP:SOURCES:

Base articles on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Source material must have been published (made available to the public in some form); unpublished materials are not considered reliable.

Furthermore we have seen that the use of the 1, 14 or 18 March doesn't change the essence of the BDOW. They are phases of the fulfillment of a international act.

Don't get confused with fringe and mainstream: the fact that Farcau, Sater and Skuban and the most of the historians never considered MarshalN20's theory is the proof that 165.91.173.221's presentation is a WP:FRINGE theory. What is published is the histography, what isn't published is the fringe.

My proposal is "Bolivia declared war on Chile". We can add a reference (footnote) and tell them interested reader that there are a minority view. I agree to this solution. A contrariwise solution violates the WP rules.

If MarshallN20 insists to present a fringe theory as mainstream, then we have to initiate the Request for Comment.

--Best regards, Keysanger (what?) 09:26, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

I really wish Keysanger would stop being so aggressive towards the professor (WP:BITE). I have asked the professor to at least post up his last name, but he does not want to. As he told me, if Wikipedia allows its members to remain anonymous, then he should have that right as well. Keysanger's attitude is not of much help to make him feel comfortable.

The professor has only provided a professional opinion on the subject. We are not citing him as a source. Assuming WP:GF, the purpose of his professional opinion is to help. He has not provided any new sources, but what he has provided is his expert interpretation of those sources.

I completely agree with Alex's understanding. Given all the "anti-war" sources for the March 1st decree, Keysanger can't claim it to be a fringe theory (even if a minority view, which it's not, a mere footnote cannot cover it). Perhaps what would make Keysanger happy is if we wrote that "Chile interpreted the March 1st decree as a declaration of war"? I don't mind that at all, and it would be an accurate representation backed by two sources (Caivano and Sivirichi); no source contradicts them (No source claims that Chile did not interpret the March 1st decree as a declaration of war).

As Alex mentions, I have departed from my past position in favor of the compromise. At this point this matter has turned more towards Keysanger accepting the compromise text and letting us all continue living our lives in peace. 6 editors have already expressed their opinion in favor of the compromise text. The whole world can't comment on this issue for Keysanger to finally be at ease.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 14:24, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

@Keysanger, we have no reason to doubt that the professor is anything other than what he says he is - a professor of history who teaches a course in this subject. He appears to know more about this particular issue than Farcau did - which is fair enough since Farcau's book is now 10 years old.

Your proposal hides reliably sourced information in order to make a complicated situation appear simple. The reality is that on March 14, Bolivia announced that a state of war existed with Chile. You know that is really what happened, and we all do. Marshal's sources show that Chile's minister Godoy reported this exact same wording - "Bolivian minister in Lima sent a circular to the diplomatic team, announcing a state of war between Chile and Bolivia". Moreover, Marshal has provided at least 8 or so reliable sources which have adopted the same wording as he proposes. There is nothing "fringe" about his proposal. Now it is true that more sources adopt your preferred wording, but when we then consider there are four sources arguing that there was no Bdow at all, and we consider Farcau's opinion that "announcing a state of war" and "declaring war" are historically synonymous, it is clear that our compromise proposal is a better representation of the full range of materials we have in front of us - especially if it is your hope that Marshal's theory of no Bdow stays out of the article altogether.

But I know you won't be convinced by this. So instead, please look at how much consensus is already against you and ask yourself how can an RFC possibly resolve it in your favour now? When there was just you & Marshal, getting outside opinions made sense. Now it seems to me that we have Marco polo, Tagishsimon, the anonymous professor, IP 90.197.66.202, the various Peruvian editors, and myself all clearly in favour of Marshal's proposal. An RFC will bring in at most another 2 or 3 opinions, none of whom will be experts in this history. In the best case, we'll have the same deadlock. In the more likely case, it will simply resolve in Marshal's favour. In the worst case, they're going to suggest that Marshal has gone further in his compromise than he needed to. Alex Harvey (talk) 15:19, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

continue

I posted a to WP:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#IP_editor_as_reliable_source_or_professional_opinion a question about the posibility of consider the contribution of the IP editor as reliable source or professional opinion.

I want to say clear and loud that I don't question the person of the editor or his contribution but its use as deciding voice in the discussion.

Please, give the board a little time to comment my question. --Best regards, Keysanger (what?) 16:31, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

The way you set up the question is a blatant break of WP:GAMING. We are not using the professor as a source. We are only taking into account his expert opinion, which is nothing more than a well-informed opinion meant to help resolve the problem. Help is the key word. Just because you don't agree with his help doesn't make it right for you to make a big issue out of it.

Your continously aggressive attitude toward him (which keeps breaking WP:BITE) makes it far less likely for him to even provide another contribution to this discussion. Thanks a lot Keysanger.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 17:59, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

The noticeboard considers unanimously that only published works can be considered as reliable source, professional or diciding opinion. The opinion of the IP editor is very valuable as mine and your but it hasn't the weight of Sater, Farcau, Lang, or Besadre's opinion. They are professional, experts and their opinion is deciding over the issue. All of them say that THERE WAS A BOLIVIAN DECLARATION OF WAR (please excuse my scream) and that is the mainstream according to the WP rules and the wording of the article must be in line with this fact of histography.

I presented you my proposal :"Bolivia declared war on Chile". We can add a reference (footnote) and tell them interested reader that there are a minority view in Peru and Bolivia, etc, etc. Such a solution would spare us the long way through the RfC, it would last longer and stable and would be WP:V and WP:NPOV rules conform. Alex, MarshalN20, what do you think about?. --Best regards, Keysanger (what?) 20:39, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't know whether you are purposely lying or have completely misunderstood the purpose of the RSN (Reliable Source Noticeboard). We are not using the professor's opinion as a source. All you have obtained from your post are further insults on the professor. If your goal was to scare him away, then you have done quite a good job at it. Many of these professors barely know how to properly use modern technology aside from e-mails, and for them places such as Wikipedia are new outlets of information.

Unanimous concensus on the noticeboard is that the professor's opinion can't be used as a source. We are not using the professor's opinion as a source. His contribution was simply that of helping us resolve the issue. Even if we discard his contribution, 5 other editors have already expressed their support for the compromise statement. Going back to what the professor wrote: "Anyone who reads that 'Bolivia announced the existence of a state of war' is going to know what it means". Dr. Farcau provided a similar explanation. Everyone agrees with their interpretation...everyone except you.

I do not agree with your proposal.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 21:13, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Keysanger, here is the situation so far:

• On March 14, Bolivia announced that a state of war existed with Chile.

Y MarshalN20
Y Cloudaoc
Y 165.91.173.221 "professor"
Y Tagishsimon
Y Marco polo
Y 90.197.66.202
Y Alex Harvey

• On March 14, Bolivia declared war on Chile

Y Keysanger

Do you want to raise an RFC? If so, I'll do it now. Alex Harvey (talk) 03:03, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

another suggestion for compromise

Marshal, I note that Tagishsimon made an important observation: I see that "that same day the Bolivian legislature authorized a formal declaration of war upon Chile", so that appears to be the declaration of war concern covered to any reasonable level of satisfaction. I agree with this statement, although I am not entirely comfortable with attributing the assertion to Farcau, which raises doubt in the reader as to the certainty of the assertion. Can you ask the professor if he knows anything more about the February 27 act of legislature? Farcau said he couldn't remember any more than what was in his book. Alex Harvey (talk) 06:02, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Hi Alex,

Please, let's go to the RfC. Here is the situation so far:

22 sources using "Bolivia declared war" and 7 sources using "proclaim/declare/advise state of war"

Y William F. Sater in "Andean Tragedy", states: page 28 Two weeks after the Chilean occupation of Antofagasta, he declared that Chile had imposed "a state of war" on Bolivia. Apparently this decree did not constitute a formal declaration of belligerence, which he announced on 18 March. page 39 Thus, Daza's declaration of war was a godsend ..., also page 42in March he suddenly declared war on Chile Y Simon Collier,William F. Sater, "A history of Chile, 1808-2002", [38] page 129 Pinto refused, perhaps believing that Daza would accept a return to the "status quo ante". But Daza did not: two weeks after the Chilean occupation of Antofagasta, Bolivia declared war N "Chile and the War of the Pacific"‎ - Page 9 by William F. Sater - History - 1986 - 343 pages Two weeks after Chile occupied the disputed territory, Daza declared war.[Sater already listed] Y "Documentary History of the Tacna-Arica dispute, University of Iowa studies in the social sciences, Vol. 8", by William Jefferson Dennis, here, page 69: On March 14 Bolivia advised representatives of foreign powers that a state of war existed with Chile. ... Godoi advised President Pinto that this move was to prevent Chile from securing armaments abroad ... Meanwhile over the Andes at La Paz, and it may be said here parenthetically that a single telegraph line might have prevented this war, Daza issued letters of marque against Chile on March 26, and a formal war circular on March 31. Taken from British State Papers, 1879-80, Vol. LXXI, pp 926-933. Y "Latin America's Wars: The age of the caudillo, 1791-1899" By Robert L. Scheina, page 376: On March 18 Bolivia declared war and confiscated all Chilean property in Bolivia and under the terms of a secret treaty ..." Y "Wars and Peace Treaties, 1816-1991", By Erik Goldstein, page 182: As result of this action Bolivia declared war on Chile (1.March) Y "The history of Chile" By John Lawrence Rector, page 100: Bolivia declared war and attemted to expel all Chileans from its territory Y onwar.com: Bolivia then declared war on Chile and called upon Peru for help. Y country-data.com: Bolivia, in alliance with Peru, declared war on Chile on March 1, ...' Y andrewclem.com: ... , but Bolivia declared war on Chile and made known its “secret” alliance with Peru in March, ... N globalsecurity.com: Bolivia, in alliance with Peru, declared war on Chile on March 1,...[Replication from www.country-data.com] Y Encarta: Bolivia declared war and was joined by Peru, a partner in a secret alliance. Y "The geopolitics of security in the Americas: hemispheric denial from Monroe ..." by Martin Sicker here: and Bolivia declared war on 14 February 1879 ... Y "A history of Chile‎" - Page 326, by Luis Galdames, Isaac Joslin Cox - History - 1941 - 565 pages: The government of Chile refused to accede to this. Meanwhile Peru mobilized its army rapidly, Bolivia declared war against Chile, and the press of those ... Y "The Bolivia-Chile-Peru dispute in the Atacama Desert" by Ronald Bruce St. John, Clive H. Schofield here: "Once Bolivia declared war on March 14 1879 ...". Y"The Ten Cents War", Bruce W. Farcau, Praeger Publishers, 2000, page 42: News of the landings reached La Paz whithin few days, but, for reason never quite made clear, Daza withheld any proclamations for another week, allegedlly to avoid putting a damper on the Carnival celebrations then underway, but on 27 February, the Bolivian legislature issued the authorization for a declaration of war, although the formal declaration would not be forthcomming until 14 March. Further, on Page 43 B.W. Farcau states: Lavalle departed Lima on 22 February, well before the Bolivian declaration of war, but nothing irreversible was to occur for some time... and inpage 44 he continues: ...Word have now reached Santiago of the Bolivian declaration of war, and, ... Y"Kleine Geschichte Lateinamerikas", by Hans-Joachim König, Philipp Reclam, Stuttgart, 2009, ISBN 978-3-315-017062-5, page 479: Chilenische Einheiten besetzten die bolivianischen Hafenstadt Antofagasta, in der nur 5% der Bevölkerung bolivianisch waren. Daraufhin erklärte Bolivian am 1. März 1879 den Krieg an. YJosé Antonio Lavalle, "Mi mision en Chile en 1879", Edición, prólogo y notas por Félix Denegri Luna , Lima, Peru, 1979, Instituto de Estudios Histórico-Marítimos del Perú. (José Antonio Lavalle was the Peruvian envoy to Chile to mediate during the crisis and Félix Denegri Luna was a well known Peruvian historian [39]) In the Prolog to the book of the Peruvian envoy to Chile to "mediate" during the crisis, Félix Denegri Luna explains in aprox. 65 pages the situation of the three countries. He wrote in: page XLIII El 1° de marzo Bolivia entró en guerra con Chile page LVIII La declaración esta fechada en La Paz el 1° de Marzo. page LXII Lavalle se indignó cuando se enteró que Daza había declarado la guerra a Chile. La noticia llegada a Santiago dos semanas después ... The text of envoy Lavalle is a primary source, but allow me a transgression of this important rule of Wikipedia only in order to get a vivid view of the situation at that time. Lavalle says in page 84: En la mañana del 18 recibí una carta verbal* del señor ministro Fierro [Chilean Minister for Foreign Affairs] pidiéndome que le viese a las 12 del día siguiente, para tener una conferencia relativa al objeto de mi mision, y pocos momentos después llegó a mis manos un suplemento del "Diario Oficial", en el que se anunciaba que el ministro de relaciones exteriores había recibido desde Tacna, por medio de correos, y desde Caldera por el telegráfo, el decreto expedido por el presidente de Bolivia en 1° del mes de marzo, que seguía, en el cual establecíase por parte de esa nación el "casus belli" con Chile, con todos sus efectos y consequencias YJorge Besadre, "Historia de la Republica, La guerra con Chile", Pero las pasiones excitadas no se enfriaron. El dí­a 18 de marzo se abrió un nuevo perí­odo de la misión Lavalle. Ese dí­a fue recibido en Santiago, desde Tacna por correo y desde Caldera por telégrafo el decreto expedido por el Presidente Daza y notificado al cuerpo diplomático el 14 de marzo estableciendo el casus belli con Chile con todos sus efectos y consecuencias, junto con otros decretos de ruptura de relaciones mientras durara la guerra y de expulsión y confiscación de bienes chilenos en Bolivia. Esto ocurrió a pesar de que Quiones y Doria Medina acordaron el 5 de marzo las bases para la mediación peruana. La versión chilena fue que Bolivia quiso impedir que Chile se armara. En realidad, Daza buscó la forma de malograr la misión Lavalle. Una vez más la legación peruana en La Paz había fallado porque, según el tratado secreto, un acto de esta especie debía haberse hecho previo acuerdo de las partes. Al no estar declarada la guerra entre Chile y Bolivia, Chile no podía pedir al Perú que se mantuviera neutral. Porque la había declarado Bolivia, la exigencia chilena de neutralidad peruana era inevitable. La declaración boliviana de guerra era (dice el historiador chileno Bulnes) un palo atravesado en las ruedas del carro empujado por Lavalle. La situación que se habí­a ido agravando mes a mes y semana a semana, se complicaba ahora día a dí­a, hora a hora, minuto a minuto. El Perú se veí­a envuelto con rapidez creciente en un conflicto tremendo, sin tiempo casi para presentar la acción conciliatoria propia y sin haber buscado una acción análoga de Argentina, Estados Unidos o las potencias europeas Tranlation by Keysanger: ...on 18 March was the begin of a new phase in Lavalle's mission. This day was received in Santiago from Tacna by post and from Caldera by telegram Daza's decree that notified on 14 March all diplomats about the casus belli against Chile with all efects and consequences, together with other decrees of rupture of relations as long as the war lasted and of expulsion of Chileans and confiscation of his goods. The Chilean version saw that Bolivia ['s declaration of war] aimed to impede the purchase of weapons to Chile. In reality, Daza intended to eliminate Lavalle's mission. Once again the Peruvian legation in La Paz [Bolivia] failed because in accordance with the treaty such act [declaration of war] should have been done in agreement between both [Peru and Bolivia]. As long as no state of war between Chile and Bolivia existed , Chile couldn't require neutrality from Peru. Since Bolivia declared the war on Chile, the Chilean request of Peruvian neutrality was inevitable. The Bolivian declaration of war on Chile was (as stated by Chilean historian Bulnes) a traverse fault through the wheel of Lavalle's handkart. The situation worsened month to month ... NHerbert Millington, American Diplomacy and the War of the Pacific, Copyright by Columbia University Press, 1948, Published in Great Britain and India by Goeffrey Cumberlege, Oxford University Press, London and Bombay, page 25: "The Bolivian war manifesto was issued on February 27, 1879, …"[unspecific mention] YClaude Michel Cluny, "Atacama, Ensayo sobre la guerra del Pacifico, 1879-1883", 2008, 480 pages, ISBN 978-968-16-7982-8, Original title of the French book: "Atacama, Essay sur la guerre du Pacifique, 1879-1883": page 441, "1° de Marzo, Bolivia declara la guerra a Chile" YGerhard Lang, "Boliviens Streben nach freiem Zugang zum Meer", Hamburger Gesellschaft für Völkerrecht und Auswärtige Politik, Herausgegeben von Prof. Dr. Herbert Krüger, Band 6, Hamburg 1966, Seite 25: Die peruanisch-chilenischen Verhandlungen waren noch im Gange. Da gab der bolivianische Sonderbevollmächtigte in Perú, Außenminister Serapio Reyes Ortiz, der den Auftrag hatte, von der peruanischen Regierung gemäß Artikel 3 des Büdnisvertrages von 1873 die Anerkennung des casus foederis zu erwirken, namens seiner Regierung dem bei der peruanischen Regierung akkreditierten diplomatischen Korps am 14. März durch Zirkularnote die vom 1. März datierte Kriegserklärung Boliviens an Chile(Fußnote 54) bekannt. Diese ungewöhnliche Schritt, eine Kriegserklärung auf diese Weise publik zu machen, erklärt sich daraus, daß zu jener Zeit nur wenige Länder in La Paz vertreten waren und die Nachrichtenübermittlung von dort wesentlich längere Zeit benötigte als von Lima aus. Mit der rechtzeitigen Bekanntgabe der Kriegserklärung aber sollten die Auslieferung von Kriegsschiffen, die bei europäischen Werften im Auftrag gegeben worden waren, und weitere Waffenlieferungen an Chile verhindert werden. Fußnote 54: State papers, Bd. 71, S. 926 Translation: The Peruvian-Chilean negotiations were still in progress when, on his government's behalf, the Bolivian special plenipotentiary in Peru, foreign minister Serapio Reyes Ortiz, who was commissioned to obtain the Peruvian government's recognition of casus foederis according to article 3 of the 1873 treaty of alliance, announced Bolivia's declaration of war on Chile(footnote 54), dated March 1, by circular note to the diplomatic Corps accredited to Peru. This unusual step, to make public a declaration of war in this fashion, can be explained by the fact that only few countries were represented in La Paz at the time, and communications from there took significantly longer than from Lima. The timely announcement of the declaration of war, however, was supposed to impede the deployment of war ships that had been commissioned to European shipyards, as well as the delivery of weapons to Chile. Footnote 54: State papers, Bd. 71, p. 926 YWaldemar Hummer, "Revindikation von historischen Gebietstiteln in Lateinamerika - Die Forderung Boliviens auf Zugang zum Meer", Herausgegeben im Auftrag der "Gesellschaft zur Forderung der Forschungen zur Europäischen und Vergleichende Rechtsgeschichte" an der Karl-Franzens-Universität Graz von o. Univ.-Prof. Dr. Bertold Sutter, Heft 16, Graz, 1983, p. 24: Angesichts dieser Invasion blieb der bolivianischen Regierung nichts anders übrig, als Chile am 1. März 1879 den Krieg zu erklären sowie Peru um Einhaltung des am ... Y William E. Skuban "Lines in the Sand" "President Daza of Bolivia responded by declaring war on Chile on February 27." Y Waltraud Q. Morales, "A Brief History of Bolivia",[40] p 82: On March 14., Bolivia announced FORMAL DECLARATION OF WAR Y University of Mississippi [41]: On March 14, Bolivia announced that because she had no other honorable recourse, a state of war with Chile existed. Y William Spence Robertson, "History of the Latin-American Nations" [42]. Page 324: "On February 14, 1879, which was the date set by Bolivia for the sale of the company's property to ensure the payment of the taxes, Chilean soldiers took possession of Antofagasta. Two weeks later Bolivia announced that in consequence a state of war existed between her and Chile. After the Peruvian government had declined to proclaim its neutrality in the struggle, Chile declared war upon Bolivia and Peru. The conflict which ensued has been designated by South Americans as the War of the Pacific." Y 'Gordon Ireland, "Boundaries, possessions, and conflicts in South America", p. 58: President Daza declared that because of the occupation a state of war existed with Chile. Y William Leonard Langer, James Blaine Hedges, Karl Julius Ploetz; "An encyclopedia of world history, ancient, medieval and modern, chronologically arranged", p. 821: Despite negotiations Bolivia decided temporarily to rescind the contract of the nitrate company. 1879, Feb. 14. Chilean troops occupied Antofagasta and Bolivia proclaimed a state of war. Y Paul Wahl, Donald R. Toppel, "The Gatling Gun", p. 93: On February 14, 1879, Bolivia proclaimed a state of war. Y James Trager, "The people's chronology: a year-by-year record of human events from prehistory to the present": Chilean troops occupy Antofagasta. Bolivia proclaims a state of war.

--Best regards, Keysanger (what?) 11:35, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Keysanger, you need to build a consensus for your position - not convince me. You obviously understand the rules. I am just another Wikipedian like you and the anonymous professor. I have no formal power to decide the matter one way or the other. I am simply willing to listen and as someone who is a Westerner I have the advantage that no one can realistically accuse me of holding a nationalist POV. I finally declared my opinion that Marshal's proposal is better. I have given you the reasons. I don't see any response to my argument. I have held this opinion for several weeks. The fact that a professor of history shared my opinion caused me to declare it. Perhaps I should have remained silent. You can add to your sources as you please but it needs to be recalled that many -- if not most -- of your sources are simply repeating things they have read in other sources. Thus we saw that Farcau had not heard of the alternate view and thus obviously had not investigated it. We saw that Skuban simply repeated something he had read without any investigation at all.

My biggest problem with your proposal is the wording "declared war" seems irreducibly to be an interpretation of what happend. In reality, Bolivia did announce that a "state of war" existed. They definitely stated that they believed this state of war had existed since Chile invaded their coastline. You don't deny this, right? So telling the reader simply that "Bolivia declared war" seems to want to tell the reader to believe something other than what I have come to realise after the course of this discussion. I don't see how that's a good thing. I think the reader deserves to know the truth. It's a minor point, of course, and the reader is free to consider our references, but I still think Marshal's proposal better tells the truth of what happened. NOTE: he is NOT claiming that Bolivia did not declare war. Nothing in Marshal's sources contradicts anything in your own sources - and remember - I got this wording from one of your own sources.

Keysanger, it is completely up to you. If you wish to press on you can. But you need to accept that if 7 editors have said that you are wrong, you need to find quite a few others before we can realistically agree to update the text in accordance with your suggestion. If you are determined to press on, then you have no choice but to raise an RFC. Alex Harvey (talk) 13:33, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

@Alex, I can try contacting the professor again and hear his opinion on the February 27 subject. Maybe he does know something about it since he has been to South America in the past (Brazil and Chile). Right now he is on leave at the university, which means that he is doing research and working on a book. The only problem is that I asked for his opinion nearly a 3 weeks ago, and just recently he had the time to place it here on the discussion. I assume that he must be busy with his own work.

In reality, I was hoping that the professor would agree with me in that Bolivia did not declare war in any way or form...but that didn't happen. His opinion was really closer to Farcau's opinion. Technically, the professor's opinion was more favorable to Keysanger's position than mine (and yet Keysanger doesn't see it).

I must also question whether his contribution would or would not help resolve the matter. He can't be used as a source, and Keysanger doesn't seem willing to accept anything which does not include the exact wording "Bolivia declared war".--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 14:47, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

It would help for the sake of my curiosity because I'm uncomfortable with "according to Farcau". The fact of an act of congress on a given day of history really shouldn't be contingent upon the opinion of Farcau! An act was either passed, or it wasn't. Saying "according to Farcau" sort of suggests to the reader that we gave up here and couldn't be bothered pursuing it any further. Presumably an act was passed as Farcau said; otherwise he wouldn't have written so, and Skuban wouldn't have named that date as the DoW. I asked Farcau if the text of this act survived today and he said he can no longer remember. Nonetheless, one would think that the Bolivian Congress archived all acts that passed. I want to know if that act was simply authorisation for the March 1 decree - or if it was authorisation to formally declare war on March 14. In my opinion, this is an important issue that remains ambiguous in our proposed wording. If it was authorisation for the March 1 decree, then the Feb 27 act is of no real significance - it would have been a formality given Daza's status as dictator. If so, we should drop it from the text. On the other hand, if it was actual authorisation for a formal declaration of war, it might simply resolve our issue. Alex Harvey (talk) 15:20, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

I've sent him a message. I've also asked him that, if he wants to, then I can copy-paste his response here in the talk page.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 23:56, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

KS's last word: WP editors are not allowed to interpret primary sources

Hi Alex,

I wonder of your posting. You make it so easy to continue the discussion because you see the failure in your rationale but you persist in the error.

You say It is a profesional opinion.

The RS noticeboard say unanimously No, it isn't a professional opinion.

You say My biggest problem with your proposal is the wording "declared war" seems irreducibly to be an interpretation of what happend.

Yes, it is an interpretation. It is the interpretation of the text given by the overwhelming majority of the historians. And that is Wikipedia. I ask you: Is your "announced ..." an interpretation?

You say In reality, Bolivia did announce that a "state of war" existed. They definitely stated that they believed this state of war had existed since Chile invaded their coastline. You don't deny this, right?

I read the text of the BDOW and my personal opinion is that Bolivia declared the war on Chile. You read the text of the BDOW and your personal opinion is that it is a 1/2*BDOW. That could be the end of the Wikipedia because that will occur in almost every article. Lets go back two steps and read the WP rules: Verificability. According to the English Wikipedia rules editors are not allowed to interprete primary sources. Only interpretations of published works are accepted. Now we get the right way. We look in the public library and find 4 sources (you say, I suspect it) stating that 0 or 1/2 BDOW. But we find 31 sources stating a BDOW. I ask you Which one is the right next step?. To say it is a 0 or a 1/2 BDOW?. or to say that it was a BDOW? I ask you, according to the WP rules, is it allowed to you use Wikipedia to publish YOUR interpretation of a primary source?

You say I think the reader deserves to know the truth.

I cite my page:User:Keysanger

Huye, Adso, de los profetas y de los que están dispuestos a morir por la verdad, porque suelen provocar también la muerte de muchos otros, a menudo antes que la propia, y a veces en lugar de la propia.

— Umberto Eco, El nombre de la rosa, Séptimo día, noche

I ask you: Are you the only owner of the truth?

You say NOTE: he [MarshalN20] is NOT claiming that Bolivia did not declare war.

He [MarshalN20] say In reality, I was hoping that the professor would agree with me in that Bolivia did not declare war in any way or form.

Do you understand me why I have no choice but to continue. It is too simple. Or can you answer my questions?

--Best regards, Keysanger (what?) 08:22, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Keysanger, this is all misrepresentation. It seems you really are just refusing to get the point on a number of issues. For example, Sater & Farcau both agree that the March 1 decree isn't a formal declaration of war. You say it is because you can read it yourself and see that it is. The conclusion you should draw is that March 1 was not a DoW yet you will never accept that - even when you find the most expert historians have this view - including the Texas A&M professor. On your other points, we know that what happened on March 14 is that Bolivia announced that a state of war existed. That's not interpretation; that's fact. It is what the Chilean minister reported and what the other primary sources say. It is worded the same in the March 1 decree, the text of which survives. That announcement is regarded as a declaration of war, another fact.

Now you are talking about a "1/2 DoW". I have no idea what that means. If you really think that "announcing a state of war" is only 1/2 a DoW then it follows that you also must believe that Daza's DoW was in reality only 1/2 a DoW. I think that's nonsense, but you said it.

But let's forget about this. I know you are not going to change your mind. The question needs to be, at what point will you accept there is a consensus against your position? Suppose we raise an RFC and three more editors support Marshal's position. Do we agree that at that point you will drop the issue? And if say 1 or 2 support you then what? It will then be 7 against 3, although I would withdraw my opinion. Still 6 against 3. I want to understand how you think this is going to end. Alex Harvey (talk) 15:08, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

I would have like that you would have read my explanation in my page (Keysanger's rationale). I have foreseen that people don't understand my position and wrote every step there (The interpretation of the decree, Why different dates?, What about Wording?). That would have answered some of your questions. You didn't.

1 against 3 or 20 against 1, it doesn' matter. I cite WP:RFC

RfCs are not votes. Discussion controls the outcome; it is not a matter of counting up the number of votes.

The current draft is completly wrong. We have to work a new one and therefore we should agree the criteria we will use.

::I see three views of the issue, I call them the 1 (KS), the 1/2(AL) and the 0(MS) BDOW, but you don't. Do you and M20 accept that that there was a full BDOW?

If you accept that, Which is the date of the full BDOW?. I can accept any of three dates: 1. 14. and 18 March. It is no problem for me.

Please, answer this questions:

1. Do you and MarshalN20 accept that that there was a full BDOW?
2. If the answer is yes: on which date?

I will show you a proposal later. --Best regards, Keysanger (what?) 18:56, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

--Best regards, Keysanger (what?) 16:08, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Cambalechero: "I think that Keysanger is systematically pushing War of the Pacific things in favour of Chile [...]"

Keysanger: "I can accept any of three dates: 1. 14. and 18 March. It is no problem for me."

Keysanger doesn't care about accuracy. All he cares about is having the statement "Bolivia declared war" in whatever space he can find. The root of the problem is that he doesn't care about the article or the general consensus; he only cares about pushing his POV on the subject. He does a good job at pretending to improve the article, but all he has done so far is push thing in favor of Chile...one can see it in every single "issue" he has proposed and the original topic title he used to begin this whole discussion ("Extreme nationalistic Peru-Bolivia POV"). I also bring back Cambalechero's quote as Keysanger's attitude (his insults and snobby performances) only serve to further confirm it.

Keysanger: "NOTE: he [MarshalN20] is NOT claiming that Bolivia did not declare war."

There is a clear difference between my POV and what I am proposing for the article. My POV, as I have countlessly explained, is that Bolivia did not declare war in any way or form (not even "by accident").

Both Dr. Farcau and the Texas A&M professor assert that "announcing a state of war" holds the same consequence as that of "declaring war". The Texas A&M professor goes a bit further and explains how "announcing a state of war" is a substitute (to declaring war) used by nations that feel as the victims. Both of them present the United States as an example, but the Texas A&M professor again goes a bit further and explains Paraguay's action in the Chaco War.

My wish would have been for them to provide a better distinction between both terms, but that did not happen. That is why I wrote that their statements ended up being more favorable to you. Of course, I should have expected that you would take my statement out of context (I keep forgetting that assuming WP:GF in this discussion is no longer good).

The historian's explanations are quite clear to everyone. It is not right to claim that "Bolivia declared war" because that never happened. What did happen is that Bolivia announced the existence of a state of war, essentially the same, but with a subtle difference which is exactly what Bolivia intended.

Also important to note is the professor's explanation that Chile did not even take the March 14 announcement as a "declaration of war". As Alex notes, Godoy didn't seem to be much bothered by it, and the Texas A&M professor claims that the foreign powers ignored Bolivia's plea (that's what it all sums up to: Bolivia trying to get the international community to stop sending war material to Chile). Dr. Farcau explains that March 18 is when Chile acknowledged the declarations of Hilarion Daza (made on March 1st), which is the date Caivano and Sivirichi claim Chile took as a declaration of war (no source disputes them).

Ultimately, I don't know why I am wasting my time with this. You (Keysanger) won't care to understand any of this. Perhaps only Alex and Cloudaoc (maybe also Chiton and the other fellows hanging around) will read it, but to them it simply will be a repetition of what they have heard already from both historians and uninvolved users. The only solution I see to this problem is either (a) You accept the compromise proposal or (A) we go up to the Administrator's noticeboard (notifying all 7-8 users which have commented on the discussion). Please note that while "a" and "A" are in essence the same letter, a difference exists. Best regards.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 23:30, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes agree that this discussion has run its course. The important point is we have made a compromise and it has gained the support of 7 (or possibly 8) editors. In Wikipedia, that's about as big a consensus as you'll ever get. Keysanger has said that even if an RFC is raised, he still will not drop the issue unless it goes his way. Accordingly, I agree that there should be no RFC until Keysanger agrees to be bound by the outcome. Alex Harvey (talk) 00:44, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

What I propose is to include the consensus statement into the article. If Keysanger reverts it, which I honestly hope he won't, then we can take it to the Administrator's board for breaking the 3RR. We have here enough evidence to justify consensus (including Keysanger's own claim of being "stubborn") for the compromise. We have other issues, also raised by Keysanger, to discuss and improve.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 01:30, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Issue 4: Peru enter the conflict

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

Unresolved

The current version [43] states without any references that:

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

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

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

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

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

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

and in page 130:

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

and below:

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

More sources:

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

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

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

Issue 5: the 10 cent tax

{{POV}}

Unresolved

The current version [44] of the article states that:

• and Bolivia imposed a 10 cent tax on the Antofagasta Nitrate & Railway Company

The article doesn't mention that the 10 cents were a clear violation of the treaty of 1874. --Best regards, Keysanger (what?) 10:35, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

It's not a "clear violation" of the 1874 treaty. Bolivia's argument was well-crafted to avoid such a situation. The current version neither approves of the 10 cent tax as legitimate or illegal. Therefore, this issue is yet another pointless one.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 03:23, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

The article must say what both sides thought about the new tax. --Best regards, Keysanger (what?) 18:58, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Issue 6: defensive/ofensive secret pact

Resolved

Extended content

{{POV}}, {{OR}} The current version [45] of the article states that: Chile was not directly mentioned in the treaty text and was not informed about its existence, which led Chilean historiography to conclude that the treaty was aimed against Chile. As Alex already said for the case of the Bdow "That suggests that what is the orthodox view in most reliable sources (Bolivia declared war) is a Chilean POV, for which there is no evidence.". --Best regards, Keysanger (what?) 11:17, 23 August 2011 (UTC) I fixed with: Chile was not directly mentioned in the treaty text and was not informed about its existence., which led Chilean historiography to conclude that the treaty was aimed against Chile. --Best regards, Keysanger (what?) 11:02, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Issue 7: Occupation of Antofagasta

Resolved

Extended content

{{POV}}, {{weasel}} The current version [46] of the article states that: According to Peruvian historian Jorge Basadre, the Chilean troops occupied the city with little resistance and experienced widespread support. The word According to suggests that there are other opinions. There are not. --Best regards, Keysanger (what?) 11:17, 23 August 2011 (UTC) I corrected with: According to Peruvian historian Jorge Basadre, tThe Chilean troops occupied the city with little resistance and experienced widespread support.

Issue 8: Cobija

{{citations missing}} {{POV}}

Unresolved

The current version [47] of the article states that:

• On March 1, 1879, after Chile's violent expulsion of Bolivian residents and authorities from the department of Cobija (Bolivia's main port),

There are no references for violent. --Best regards, Keysanger (what?) 11:17, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

"Considering: That the Chilean government has factually invaded national territory, without observing the laws of the Rights of Nations, or the practices of the civilized peoples, violently expulsing the resident authorities and Bolivians of the Cobija department." from Guillermo Lazos Carmona, History of the borders of Chile, page 65.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 14:34, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

You are citing a primary source, Daza's decree on 1. March 1879, 1. paragraph "Considerando: ...", see page 65. Do you think, it is a good reference?. --Best regards, Keysanger (what?) 13:19, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

If you can provide a more reliable reference which contests the source, then you can by all means remove it. However, remember that this is the paragraph which will get changed with the proposal discussions currently going on.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 14:31, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

I can give you a cite from WP:BURDEN: The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material..--Best regards, Keysanger (what?) 14:38, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

I have provided my evidence. The burden now falls upon you, not me.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 16:12, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

If this is the only evidence - a primary source which is Daza himself - then Keysanger would be right. Even if we were allowed to do original research, it would not be a good argument. You would need more evidence that just what Daza asserted. Alex Harvey (talk) 07:07, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Sources

• La Reforma Social (Page 82): "The arrival of minister Reyes Ortiz and the violent occupation of Antofagasta radically changed opinions."
• Nicanor Aranzaes (Page 317): "The violent occupation of Antofagasta by Chilean troops on February 14 of 1879, exhalted Bolivian patriotism which took to arms in defence of the homeland."
• Victor Mantilla, Ernesto A. Rivas, Nicolás Augusto González (Page 361): "In effect, Mr. Lavalle went to his destination on February 22 of 1879, eight days after the violent occupation of Antofagasta by Chilean forces."

Should I also repeat that this is the paragraph which will get changed by the information currently discussed over Bolivia's DoW?--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 15:13, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Violent... if there is some source speaking about which kind of "violence" happened it would be much easier to decide the wording of these events in the article. So if you Marshal, or somebody else, have details on what constituted the violence it would help a lot. Chiton magnificus (talk) 10:57, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

This whole "issue" is non-existant given that this paragraph is the one that will get deleted upon the end of the other discussion.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 14:16, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Issue 9: Acknowledging

Resolved

Extended content

{{copy edit}} The current version [48] of the article states that: Acknowledging [49] and [50] That is poor English. --Best regards, Keysanger (what?) 11:17, 23 August 2011 (UTC) HAHAHA...ehem. Are you serious?--MarshalN20 | Talk 20:08, 23 August 2011 (UTC) There is no problem with the English grammar here; acknowledge is used in the sense 'recognize the existence, truth, or fact of'. Is Keysanger's concern that this is a mistranslation however? Alex Harvey (talk) 05:41, 24 August 2011 (UTC) If two English native speakers assert it, I pull it back. --Best regards, Keysanger (what?) 13:21, 24 August 2011 (UTC) Great - resolved! Alex Harvey (talk) 15:28, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Issue 10: Grau

{{peacock}}

Unresolved

The current version [51] of the article states that:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I'll provide a whole article ([52]). It's from the Spanish Wikipedia, but it has bibliography and citations. There's even this awesome image from the time ([53]), where the news bulletins all show Miguel Grau's "Huascar" being cited in different places at the same time. The image is from 1879, and it captures the hype over Miguel Grau's deeds in the war. Not many people take it into account, but the actions of Huascar and its defeat by Chile's renewed naval strategy had much impact on The Influence of Sea Power Upon History.

• Here is one source: "'The Gentleman fo the Seas', is a glorious phrase which eternally accompanies Admiral Miguel Grau, and which is recognized not only by Peruvians and Chileans but also by other nations which have seen in Don Miguel the supreme teaching of loving those who are your "enemies", save those fallen in the seas as a product from an conflict which had no reason to exist, because they were fulfilling their role in life" ([54]).
• Here is another source: "The Huascar, under the command of Admiral Miguel Grau, became a serious problem for Chile. Three times it entered Antofagasta firing at Chilean ships; captured two merchant ships in Cobija (27 May); faced the Blanco Encalada and Magallanes on June 3rd; the 10th of that month captured the Matias Cousiño in Iquique; the 23rd of July captured the Rimac transport which held the "Escudaron de Carabineros de Yungay", nearby Antofagasta. The runs of the monitor kept the entire Chilean navy in alert and filled with indignation the public opinion. [...] The 1st of October [the Chilean navy] went to Arica in search of the Huascar whose capture was made indispensable to initiate the land campaign" ([55])

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

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

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

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

Hi Alex,

M20 has given us the source of the sentence. It is this book [56]. It is a Peruvian Childrenbook, no pagenumbers. Zou have to search for "Caballero de los mares". It is approx. in the middle.

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

Issue 11: Peruvian victory in Iquique und Punta Gruesa

Resolved

Extended content

{{confusing}}, {{contradict}} The current version [57] of the article states that: The naval battles of Iquique and Punta Gruesa gave a tactical victory to Peru: the blockade was defeated and the Chilean ships retreated or were sunk. Nevertheless, it was a pyrrhic victory; losing the Independencia, one of Peru's most important ships, was a fatal blow. What means tactical victory? a defeat?. --Best regards, Keysanger (what?) 11:17, 23 August 2011 (UTC) The mission of the Huascar and Independencia was to end the blockade of Iquique. They succeeded in their mission, therefore achieving a tactical victory. The loss of the Independencia made it a pyrrhic victory. Simple as that.--MarshalN20 | Talk 15:38, 23 August 2011 (UTC) Do any of the sources refer to this as a "tactical victory"? Alex Harvey (talk) 15:19, 24 August 2011 (UTC) Jose Tamayo Herrera ([58]): "The battle of Iquique was a tactical victory." Rex Hudson ([59]): "Peru gained a Pyrrhic victory in the first naval action of the war." Anything else?--MarshalN20 | Talk 16:20, 24 August 2011 (UTC) That's probably enough to establish that it was a "tactical victory" and a "pyrrhic victory". Are there sources that say otherwise? Alex Harvey (talk) 03:07, 25 August 2011 (UTC) There were two fights, one in Iquique where the Chilean Esmeralda was sunk and other fight in Punta Gruesa where the Peruvian Independencia went aground persueing a Chilean ship. The current text confuse both battles: The naval battles of Iquique and Punta Gruesa gave a tactical victory to Peru: .... That is non-sense. As MarshallN20 source states: El combate de IQUIQUE fue una victoria táctica but not Punta Gruesa. Correct is : The naval battle of Iquique gave a tactical victory to Peru: .... Respectively, Nevertheless, it was a pyrrhic victory; losing the Independencia, one of Peru's most important ships, was a fatal blow. is misleading. Correct is : Nevertheless, it was a pyrrhic victory; losing the Independencia in Punta Gruesa, one of Peru's most important ships, was a fatal blow. --Best regards, Keysanger (what?) 06:17, 25 August 2011 (UTC) So can't we just fix this? Alex Harvey (talk) 06:41, 25 August 2011 (UTC) Iquique and Punta Gruesa are generally regarded as one, especially since no actual battle went on in Punta Gruesa.--MarshalN20 | Talk 14:19, 25 August 2011 (UTC) Proposal: ''The naval battle of Iquique gave a tactical victory to Peru: the blockade was defeated and one Chilean ship was sunk and the other retreated. Nevertheless, it was a pyrrhic victory; losing the Independencia, one of Peru's most important ships, was a fatal blow. . References aren't needed. --Best regards, Keysanger (what?) 06:57, 25 August 2011 (UTC) Why is this even an issue?--MarshalN20 | Talk 14:19, 25 August 2011 (UTC) Nothing. Forget it. It is already fixed. --Best regards, Keysanger (what?) 10:56, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Issue 12: War crimes

{{non-sense}}

Resolved

Extended content

The current version [60] has a new chapter "War Crimes" including subsections "Lynch's expedition", "Plunder of Lima" and "Repaso". Neither Sater nor Farcau have a "war crimes" chapter and this is understandable because as stated in War crime [61] Similar concepts, such as perfidy, have existed for many centuries as customs between civilized countries, but these customs were first codified as international law in the Hague Conventions of 1899 and 1907.. --Best regards, Keysanger (what?) 11:17, 23 August 2011 (UTC) The Hague Conventions define concepts like "war crime" in 1899 yes, but this do not imply than this acts do not exist prior its definition in that year, and also the fact than Farcau and Sarter do not mentioned as such in their books does not means than the war crimes aren't exists, and this concepts are defined and existed today, therefore, its use to describe the atrocities commited by the Chilean Army in Peruvian soil is necessary, because the article is being written today, no prior 1899. We are not forced to only use the terms and language of that time to describe the facts as they were. Greetings.Cloudaoc (talk) 19:18, 23 August 2011 (UTC) Exactly. It's laughable that "war crimes" only exist after a certain date. As far as it concerns the current definition, killing the wounded (Repaso), vandalizing civilian property and comitting murder (Lynch's expedition), and plundering cities (Plunder of Lima) are considered war crimes. Another term which could be used is "Barbarities", which was the term most commonly used prior to "war crimes." I assume Keysanger wouldn't want a section titled "Chilean barbarism"?--MarshalN20 | Talk 19:55, 23 August 2011 (UTC) So should we have a section discussing the "war crimes" of Julius Caesar? We would need reliable sources to establish "war crimes". Alex Harvey (talk) 08:19, 24 August 2011 (UTC) If you find laughable that neither Farcau nor Sater have that chapter, then you should go out from Wikipedia and write that in the newspaper "La Razon". And you would get money for!. --Best regards, Keysanger (what?) 14:53, 24 August 2011 (UTC) This is serious? We are talking about acts committed less than a two hundred years ago, not two thousand years ago, the concepts involving acts like "war crime" do not exist as such, because the modern world who define it do not exist at that time, also, this definitions have its origins in the moral introduced into the Roman Empire by the Christian Church, several hundred years later than Caesar, therefore your affirmation is anachronic by definition. Besides, there is a lot of reliable sources which details the barbarism of the Chilean troops during the course of the war, and some of them are cited in this article. Keysanger, the author of the article published by La Razon is a well-know Peruvian historian, and cannot be discarded because the newspaper than published is its article is -at least- "polemical". Greetings. Cloudaoc (talk) 15:03, 24 August 2011 (UTC) It is half serious. Of course 2000 years ago is very different from 150 years ago but the idea of a "crime" without reference to the existence of an actual "law" that it violates is still strange to me. In any case what really matters - as always - is not our own thoughts but what the reliable sources say. We also need a neutral structure and we need to use neutral language - even when sources don't always use neutral language. But first, let's see what the reliable sources do say. Alex Harvey (talk) 15:27, 24 August 2011 (UTC) Regarding "La Razon", it's really funny how Keysanger seems to dislike it. La Razon is known for being a reliable newspaper, and Ramiro Prudencio Lizon is a notable historian and diplomat. In any case, sources are not necessary to know that murdering civilians and vandalizing their property, plundering cities, and killing the wounded are war crimes. However, since that is what Alex suggests: Primary Sources Dámaso Uriburu (Page 100): "[The civilized world] opposes conquest, whether by title or through reinvindication, whether as compensation of wealth and blood, according to what Chile has pretended and realized carelessly. The most rigurous law of modern rights is written over the foundations of the natural law: to not make more harm than what necessity justifies. [...] No justification exists for the cruelties of an army following its victory: the plunder, the murders, the firings, the death sentences, the flagellations, the rapes and robberies of victims, these all are crimes against humanity." Ernesto Rivas ([62]): "We not only can accuse Chile of treacherous, for surprisingly declaring war on us in '79, in moments in which we most trusted in the fraternal love which they pretended, but also to the cruelty it made us suffer throught its hours in power. From its cowardly murder of sailors in the Independencia--while this sunk in Punta Gruesa at the same time the Huascar provided aid to the men of the Esmeralda--until its army left our territory throught he peace treaty of 1883, [...] it was a chain of the most abominable and horrifying crimes. [...] In the cities which they entered, they treated them with the ferocity of Medieval warriors, killing the inhabitants, destroying buildings and fields. Pisagua, Iquique,Tacna, Arica, Chorrillos, Barranco, Concepcion, Huancayo etc. to this day lie in ruins as a result of Chile's hate. Lima, the most beautiful capital of Peru, owes its salvation to the intervention of the foreign Diplomatic Corps [...] In the battlefields neither the wounded or the field hospitals were respected, which the rights of people and the laws of humanity place in safety from any attack." Félix Lajouane (Page 65): ""[Chile], ever courageous with its unpunished crimes, pretends to distract the strong [...] El Mercurio wrote in its frontpage--we have fun destroying their ports, in messing up their commerce, and making them die of hunger." Secondary Sources Alfonso Klauer (Page 99): "The Chilean armed forces annihilated the Peruvian military, and comitted in our territory innumerable crimes, robberies, repressions and larceny of all kinds." Luis Humberto Delgado ([63]): "It weighs on Bolivians and Peruvians the punishment of losing the War of the Pacific, which they did not promote, but which Chileans conceived and won with the purpose of obtaining wealth, and unhappy with the fruits of its crimes comitted during the war [...]." Isidora Aguirre (Page 171): "A detail: Leaving Chile prior to the coup, Frenchman Regis Debray commented that the situation was grave, but that 'it was more Chilean than grave.' At this point his appreciation was valid. We all make mistakes. We attribute the unleashed violence to a strong change in our idiosincracy. Perhaps it was due to the ignorance of our past. Do you no think our people hold potential violence? All we need is to read the crimes in the news: "friends, true friends, and within the depths of alcohol a stab", or "crazy farmer kills with a hatchet his wife and kids." And let's not forget the savagery done against Peru and Bolivia during the War of the Pacific." Carlos Alberto Yrigoyen Forno ([64]): "To my understanding, under judgement of my most profound faith in my religious creed and personal feelings, I believe that the crimes and destructions committed by Chile during the war of the Pacific have marked us forever, with a before and after [...]." Given these sources, Chile has been accused of war crimes both during the war (primary sources) and aftewards (secondary sources). In any case, if Keysanger seeks to further argue against this point, then it is now up to him to bring forth evidence in favor of his point. Sater and Farcau not including a war crimes section does not justify Keysanger's position; and his explanation of their decision is, once more, another example of his apologetic argument. Perhaps Keysanger has the ability to read minds?--MarshalN20 | Talk 16:05, 24 August 2011 (UTC) Do you have a scholarly piece about the War of the Pacific with a chapter "War Crimes"?. Isidora Aguirre's "Santiago de diciembre a diciembre" is is a book of long narrative in literary prose, usually called Novel. --Best regards, Keysanger (what?) 06:50, 25 August 2011 (UTC) Isidora Aguirre is a well-known social rights writer. Discarding her as a source leaves plenty of others. Once again, if you have no valid counter-argument to present, then this discussion is over.--MarshalN20 | Talk 14:04, 25 August 2011 (UTC) I agree that there are reasons for having a section for the war crimes but shouldn't it better be called something like War crimes and atrocities which widens the concepts? Secondly I don't understand what makes Lynch expedition a war crime, is the illegal taxation by Lynch a war crime? What is a sort of crime that should absolutely be included is the handing over of coolies that helped Chileans to the Peruvians who than killed many of them and plundered Chinese shops. Because of the existence of events things like this (the coolies) that aren't nesesarily war crimes but still terrorific I propose to expand the section from War crimes to War crimes and atrocities. Chiton magnificus (talk) 16:23, 28 August 2011 (UTC) Lynch's expedition is a war crime as he used military force to attack civilians (including robbery, property destruction, and murder). "Taxation" is the term used in excuse by Lynch, as at that point Chile did not control the territory or Lima and, therefore, no "taxation" could actually take place. Coolies existed throughout the globe, and their mistreatment happened prior, during, and after the War of the Pacific. In that sense, they are only notable to this article when taking into consideration that they attacked and stole from Peruvian plantations after being "released" by the Chilean military. How to include this in the article? No idea really. Perhaps following your suggestion of expanding the "War Crimes" section to include other events could work, and we could include a section on the coolies' role in the war. We really should work on the naming first...--MarshalN20 | Talk 16:55, 28 August 2011 (UTC) I examinated following en:WP articles about wars before 1899: Siege_of_Hamburg Napoleonic_Wars Second_Schleswig_War Franco-Prussian_War American_Civil_War Seven_Years'_War Thirty_Years'_War No one of them has a section or chapter "War crimes". --Best regards, Keysanger (what?) 19:30, 31 August 2011 (UTC) I agree that this article should not have a section "war crimes". The facts included in the section should be presented in the text, not in their own section. This section gives the article a very anti-Chilean top level structure. To me, this appears to be a quite serious POV problem. Alex Harvey (talk) 15:44, 2 September 2011 (UTC) Then, the articles about the war crimes committed by the Nazi Germany also should not use that name because that term gives each article a very anti-German meaning, isn't? The same rule do not apply to them, or not? The facts are the facts, no more and no less. Greetings. Cloudaoc (talk) 23:04, 2 September 2011 (UTC) I'll point out a few things: Just because other articles don't have sections on them doesn't mean that this article should not have it either. All of the information present in the section is cited with reliable sources. The events presented in the "War Crimes" section are all factual. The section is not named "Chilean war crimes". In fact, if information regarding any military wrong-doings in part of Bolivians or Peruvians is found, no reason exists as to why it cannot be included in the section. This conflict didn't take place at the start of the 19th century or earlier. By the time of this conflict, notions of morality within the battlefield already existed, and the non-belligerent position of civilian populations was accepted. The acts committed by Chile during the war don't even fit into the idea of "Total War", as killing wounded soldiers after having defeated them, mudering and stealing from civilian populations, and plundering cities after attaining victory is not even part of the "Total War" strategy. Given these points, the section should not be deleted. I do think that the title could be something better.--MarshalN20 | Talk 23:50, 2 September 2011 (UTC) I am sorry but I don't find any of these points persuasive. Here are the problems as I see them: we can not do original research. We must take our cue from reliable secondary sources. If leading historians like Sater and Farcau do not have a section or chapter devoted to "war crimes" then we probably shouldn't either. the above point is probably the only observation required here, but even if we allowed original research, the identification of Chilean crimes during the War of the Pacific as "war crimes" seems anachronistic to me for the reason Keysanger gave. Further, I have done some searching on 'history of war crimes' and each piece I find begins at the beginning of the 20th century and I can't find any scholarly piece referring to the War of the Pacific. the sources that Marshal has adduced in support of his position refer just to "crimes" in the ordinary sense - not "war crimes". I don't think "crimes" and "war crimes" are necessarily the same thing. finally, all of Marshal's quotes use an outraged, partisan tone suggesting that they are probably not scholarly histories. I suspect there are probably other reasons too why this section is completely inappropriate but this is surely enough. Alex Harvey (talk) 06:10, 3 September 2011 (UTC) Good. I have moved the information to other sections.--MarshalN20 | Talk 02:09, 6 September 2011 (UTC) We close this section without prejudice to other provisions (specially references, due weight, pov, etc) regarding the moved statements.

Issue 13: which discomfited the Chileans, However

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

Unresolved

The current version [65] of the article states that:

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

I cite from WP:EDITORIALIZING:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Proposal:

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

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

No Keysanger, your proposal is clearly one-sided.

Supporting sources for my proposal

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

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

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

Issue 14: Celae?

Resolved

Extended content

{{copy edit}} --Best regards, Keysanger (what?) 08:44, 25 August 2011 (UTC) The current version [66] of the article states that: Celae planned to retain the territories of Moquegua, Tacna, and Arica until all peace treaty conditions were satisfied Do you mean "Chile"?. --Best regards, Keysanger (what?) 08:30, 25 August 2011 (UTC) These sorts of problems surely don't need to be discussed - see WP:BRD. Alex Harvey (talk) 08:33, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Issue 15: Unbalanced narrative of battles

Resolved

Extended content

{{POV}}, {{Weasel words}} The current version [67] of the article states for the Naval Battle of Iquique and PG that: In the May 21, 1879 Battle of Iquique, Captain Miguel Grau Seminario (known as the "Knight of the Seas" due to his chivalry) commanded the Huáscar, and managed to sink the Esmeralda. Esmerelda's commander, Commander Arturo Prat Chacón, died in combat and became Chile's greatest naval hero. At around the same time, the Independencia, led by Captain Juan Guillermo More, chased the Chilean schooner Covadonga (Lieutenant Commander Carlos Condell) into shallow coastal waters which eventually caused the heavier Independencia to wreck at the Punta Gruesa The Battle of Topater is reported: This Battle of Topáter was the war's first. Bolivian troops under the command of Dr. Ladislao Cabrera refused to surrender prior to or during the battle. Outnumbered and low on ammunition, the Bolivian force withdrew except for a small group of civilians led by Colonel Eduardo Abaroa, who fought to the end We see that the Knight of the Seas (Grau) is much better than a dead in combat (Prat), he is a hero only in Chile. Grau is "of the seas". Moreover, the Bolivians fought Outnumbered and low on ammunition and refused to surrender. And the Chileans?. Outnumbered the Peruvian monitor Huascar the Chilean wooden ship Esmeralda?. Yes. Did the Chileans refused to surrender?. Yes. Why is it mentioned in one case and not in the other?. Moreover, More (or Moore) led the Peruvian ship in contrast to (Condell, in brackets), probably he slept only in the Chilean ship. --Best regards, Keysanger (what?) 08:43, 25 August 2011 (UTC) Moreover, the Bolivians are lead by Colonel Eduardo Abaroa and Dr. Ladislao Cabrera. Chileans aren't lead, the are a formless mass. --Best regards, Keysanger (what?) 15:03, 25 August 2011 (UTC) fixed. About "The lord of the seas" see issue 10. --Best regards, Keysanger (what?) 10:50, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Issue 16: Occupation/Invasion

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

Unresolved

The current version of the article [68] states that

• when Chile invaded the Bolivian port city of Antofagasta

The English histography of the War of the Pacifis uses "occupation" for the deployment of Chilean forces in Antofagasta:

• A history of South America, 1854-1904, Charles Edmond Akers [69]
• A history of Chile, 1808-1994, Simon Collier,William F. Sater, [70]
• Wars of the Americas: a chronology of armed conflict in the Western ..., Vo 1, David Marley, [71]
• The Bolivia-Chile-Peru dispute in the Atacama Desert, David Newman,Ronald Bruce St. John , [72]

--Best regards, Keysanger (what?) 13:02, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

1. You don't know what a weasel word is (surprising, since you like to use them constantly).
2. Nothing wrong exists with the term "invasion." Do you want us to say that Chile went to sell ice cream in Antofagasta and play a happy jingle in the background?

Seriously Keysanger, this "issue" is ridiculous. Why don't you focus on resolving the other disputes first?--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 13:53, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Although I think that Keysanger is systematically pushing War of the Pacific things in favour of Chile, I think that in this specific case occupation seems more adecuate than invasion since that was hardly any military was defending the city.

Wikipedias own reads like following:

An invasion is a military offensive consisting of all, or large parts of the armed forces of one geopolitical entity aggressively entering territory controlled by another such entity, generally with the objective of either conquering, liberating or re-establishing control or authority over a territory, forcing the partition of a country, altering the established government or gaining concessions from said government, or a combination thereof.

If this definition is acepted then it should be noted that 500 soldiers is not a large part of the army of Chile so I would not qualify as an invasion due to its size. Chiton magnificus (talk) 13:23, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Hello Chiton, thank you for joining the discussion. It would be great if you could stay and provide your input on other points as well.

As much as it hurts me to say it...Wikipedia is not a reliable source. To be more specific, non GA-class or FA-class articles are unreliable. GA and FA articles have gone under actual review, so I like to give them credibility. The invasion article you cite has no references for its definition of the term invasion. In other words, some user (or users) have arbitrarily decided what invasion means without consulting reliable sources (at least not that we know of since they don't even have a bibliography).

According to Dictionary.com:

"Invasion - An act or instance of invading or entering as an enemy, especially by an army."

"Invade - to enter as if to take possession: to invade a neighbor's home."

Based on the sources, Chile took possession of Bolivian territory with an army, therefore (by definition) they invaded the Bolivian port city of Antofagasta.

Agree, disagree, or comments? Best of wishes.-MarshalN20 | ^Talk 16:24, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

I DO not participate in interpretations. I use reliable sources only. --Best regards, Keysanger (what?) 15:55, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Do you know how and when to use reliable sources? This is a language discussion. stating that Chile invaded Bolivian territory is a correct usage of the English language.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 22:00, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Generally we should use terms that convey as little emotion as possible while communicating the same meaning (see WP:YESPOV, point 4). From various dictionaries I am surprised that the meaning of "invade" actually varies somewhat from dictionary to dictionary. The Free Dictionary has for invasion, "The act of invading, especially the entrance of an armed force into a territory to conquer." It's not certain - from what I can see - that Chile's initial intention was to "conquer". Of course, "invasion" can also simply mean to send an army into someone else's territory (and thus we have historians in Australia arguing over whether the original arrival of British settlers was an "invasion" or not). I am inclined to think that, all things considered, Keysanger's suggestion might be a minor improvement. Alex Harvey (talk) 01:31, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Chile's intention is not in question here. From a retrospective analysis, Chile ultimately conquered the territory, therefore they invaded Bolivian territory. There was no "Battle of Antofagasta", but the Chilean invasion of Bolivia's litoral was not peaceful (let's not forget the Battle of Topater). Similarities can be drawn to the retrospect analysis of Germany in World War II. In retrospect, the Germans did not conquer the French, but are considered as having occupied the territory (as well as Norway, Czechoslovakia, etc). The term "occupation" is used when a territory is administered by a foreign country but ultimately returned to its legal owner. This did not happen in Antofagasta.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 02:24, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Chile's initial intention is in question. We can't argue that because the historical outcome was that Chile conquered Bolivia that it was therefore also Chile's intention at the outset to conquer Bolivia. In fact my impression from what I've read so far is the opposite. As for occupation, it is defined simply as "the holding and control of an area by a foreign military force". There is nothing in the meaning of the term "occupation" that it is "ultimately returned to its legal owner". Alex Harvey (talk) 02:45, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

The historical outcome is indeed part of the discussion as we are not living in 1879. The Battle of Topater is a clear example that Chile did use military force to take over the Bolivian litoral. What gives you the impression that Chile did not want to conquer the Bolivian coast? Per the Wiki article on Occupied territory (This one has sources):

Occupied territory is territory under military occupation. Occupation is a term of art in international law; in accordance with Article 42 of the Laws and Customs of War on Land (Fourth Hague Convention); October 18, 1907, territory is considered occupied when it is actually placed under the authority of the hostile army. The occupation extends only to the territory where such authority has been established and can be exercised. At the end of a war, usually the victorious side is in possession of territory previously possessed by another state. This territory is known as occupied territory. Acquisition of occupied territory is incidental to a war, where the military forces of the occupying power come into the possession of territory previously held by another state. Occupation is usually temporary; and under the subsequent articles of the Hague convention (articles 43, 44, etc.), and the Fourth Geneva Convention the status quo must be maintained pending the signing of a peace treaty, the resolution of specific conditions outlined in a peace treaty, or the formation of a new civilian government.

Based on this, my understanding is the following: The military invades (attacks) territory which it then occupies (takes charge). This can be contrasted to the "raiding and plundering" tactics of some military forces (which invade but do not occupy). Therefore, Chile invaded the Bolivian litoral (Antofagasta) and then went on to occupy it (take control over it).--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 03:18, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Invade or occupy, it seems to me that are more less equaly positively/negatively charge and I don't see the point of arguing about it since both words can be applied to describe the events. Chiton magnificus (talk) 06:48, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

The definition provided the Fourth Hague Convention (at least according to the information above) is that "occupation" happens "when [territory] is actually placed under the authority of the hostile army." Based on this definition, an "occupation" can only take place after a military invasion. It's a matter of sequential order. Chile invaded the Bolivian litoral and then went on to occupy it for the remainder of the war. Therefore, the phrase "when Chile invaded the Bolivian port city of Antofagasta", is correct.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 13:33, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

I repeat: no our interpretation of the history or words is deciding. We have to use what the historians use for the event. And they use "occupation". --Best regards, Keysanger (what?) 09:26, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

This is a matter of language usage (nothing requiring historic sources).--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 13:34, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Proposal #1

While we're on the subject, I suppose we could also discuss improving the first paragraph based on the information we have discussed.

The War of the Pacific (Spanish: Guerra del Pacífico) took place in western South America from 1879 through 1883. Chile fought against Bolivia and Peru. Despite cooperation among Chile, Peru, and Bolivia in the war against Spain, disputes soon arose over the mineral-rich Peruvian provinces of Tarapaca, Tacna, and Arica, and the Bolivian province of Antofagasta. Chilean enterprises, which largely exploited the area, saw their interests at stake when Peru nationalized all nitrate mines in Tarapaca, and Bolivia imposed a 10 cent tax on the Antofagasta Nitrate & Railway Company. The problem primarily focused on Bolivia and Chile due to their controversy over ownership of Atacama, which preceded and laid foundations for their conflict. Chile began the armed conflict by occupying Antofagasta on February 14, 1879, and invading the Bolivian Litoral without a prior declaration of war. Peru notified Bolivia of the situation, and entered the affair as a mediator to the dispute. Nonetheless, Peru's mediation became compromised by Bolivia's announcement of a state of war with Chile and its desire to activate their "Treaty of Mutual Defense." Chile demanded Peru's immediate neutrality, but Peru suggested its congress should first debate the matter. Disatisfied with the response, Chile formally declared war on both countries on April 5, 1879, and the following day Peru activated the alliance.

I bolded the sentence which deals with this topic. We use "occupation" for Antofagasta and "invasion" for the litoral. I propose this compromise.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 14:29, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Agree . Only (biased) traditinal Chilean historiography may possibly avoid or reject the term invasion since Litoral would have according to (biased) Chilean historiography legally Chilean from the point Bolivia broke the treaty according to Chilean authorities. This view is clearly a round-about justification for the conquest and annexation of this department. Chiton magnificus (talk) 15:57, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Chiton magnificus (talk) 15:57, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Agree Is quite absurd to pretend sustain than the Chilean landing on Antofagasta wasn't an invasion, that was Bolivian territory, ruled by Bolivian authorities and Bolivian law, and if some sources didn't explicitly states than was an invasion, this didn't mean than it wasn't. That kind of argument is a complete fallacy. Greetings. Cloudaoc (talk) 22:07, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Please give a few days to answer your proposal. I will see the wording of Sater and Farcau before responding. --Best regards, Keysanger (what?) 14:25, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Your proposal included a lot of controversial concepts (invasion, started, without DOW, etc) into the discussion. Your attitude is not convenient to resolve the issue. Please, reconsider your behaviour.

Neither Farcau nor Sater use the wording "invade" or "invasion" for the Chilean deployment of troops in the region of Antofagasta. And Farcau says the reason: there was scarcely Bolivian presence.

They use following wording to describe the events:

Farcau, "Ten Cents..", p.60

By this time the Chilean army of occupation had grown to approximately 4000 men including local recruits, and the Chilean government had made the desicion to occupy the whole of the Bolivian littoral, not just the portion south of the 23rd parallel, in order to provide security for the "Chilean" portion of the Atacama. Since there was virtually no Bolivian military presence in the area, a number of columns were sent out to take formal posession of the area.

Sater, Andean Tragedy, p.28

The Chilean contingent commanded by Col. Emilio Sotomayor quickly occupied Antofagasta, the principal port of Bolivia's littoral. Within hours of landing, the Blanco Encalada and the O'Higgins took up posesion off Bolivias ports of Cobija, Tocopilla and Mejillones. By the end of the month, two thousand Chilean soldiers, some of them militiamen from newly mobilized guards units, garrisoned Antofagasta, Cobija, and Tocopilla.

--Best regards, Keysanger (what?) 19:43, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

You are misinterpreting the source. "Since there was virtually no Bolivian military presence in the area" is the antecedent to "a number of columns were sent out to take formal posession of the area". Farcau at no point explains his reasoning. Based on the sources I have precented, the difference between "occupation" and "invasion" has been clarified.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 00:26, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

This issue is probably not unlike the "DoW" issue in that both wordings are correct but the question is which is more appropriate. Which sources, Marshal, do you think suggest "invasion" is the better word? Alex Harvey (talk) 06:50, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Issue 17: repeated

Resolved

Extended content

{{copy edit}} The current version [73] of the article states that: Chilean naval power was based on the twin armored frigates, Cochrane and Blanco Encalada, each of 3,560 tons and equipped with 6x250 pound muzzle-loading guns, 2x70 pound guns, 2x40 pound guns, and an armored belt with a maximum thickness of 9 inches (23 cm). The ships' maximum operating speed was about 12 knots. The fleet included the corvettes Chacabuco, O'Higgins, and Esmeralda, the gunboat Magallanes, and the schooner Covadonga. Peruvian naval power relied on the armored frigate Independencia and the monitor Huáscar. The Independencia weighed 3,500 tons, with 4.5 inches (11 cm) armor, 2x150 pound guns, 12x70 pounders, 4x32 pounders, and 4x9 pound guns. Her maximum operating speed was about 12 knots. The monitor Huáscar weighed 1,745 tons, had 4.5 inch armor and possessed 2 muzzle-loading 300 pound guns located in a revolving turret. She had a maximum operating speed of 10–11 knots.[38][39] The fleet was completed by the corvette Unión, the gunboat Pilcomayo, and the fluvial monitors BAP Atahualpa and BAP Manco Cápac. This stuff is already given in the table under "Military strenght comparison". --Best regards, Keysanger (what?) 09:32, 30 August 2011 (UTC) Are you trying to build consensus - or make a point about how terrible the article is? Alex Harvey (talk) 14:12, 30 August 2011 (UTC) The whole article including the military strength of the parties should be understood even without looking at the tables. I found hower this text too technical. But this issue is more a matter of style than a controversial point to be discussed here (unless Keysanger and Marshall want again to have a clash on this issue). Chiton magnificus (talk) 16:14, 31 August 2011 (UTC) I suppose that the "technical terms" can be removed if that's what bothers Keysanger. However, explaining the ship classes is important. By this I mean explaining whic ships are corvettes, gunboats, schooners, fluvial monitors (which are by no means the same as normal monitors), monitors, etc. I propose the following the combination of both paragraphs: Chilean naval power was based on the twin frigates, Cochrane and Blanco Encalada, each of 3,560 tons and equipped with muzzle-loading guns and an armored belt with a maximum thickness of 9 inches (23 cm). The ships' maximum operating speed was about 12 knots. The fleet included the corvettes Chacabuco, O'Higgins, and Esmeralda, the gunboat Magallanes, and the schooner Covadonga. Peruvian naval power relied on the armored frigate Independencia and the monitor Huáscar. The Independencia weighed 3,500 tons, with guns and 4.5 inches (11 cm) of armor. Her maximum operating speed was about 12 knots. The monitor Huáscar weighed 1,745 tons, had 4.5 inch armor and possessed 2 muzzle-loading guns located in a revolving gun turret. She had a maximum operating speed of 10–11 knots.[38][39] The fleet was completed by the corvette Unión, the gunboat Pilcomayo, and the fluvial monitors BAP Atahualpa and BAP Manco Cápac. Better? I only kept the weight, armor, and speed for the main ships.--MarshalN20 | Talk 23:19, 31 August 2011 (UTC) Chilean naval power was based on the twin frigates, Cochrane and Blanco Encalada, (3,560 tons, armor of 9 inches and 12 knots). The fleet included the corvettes Chacabuco, O'Higgins, and Esmeralda, the gunboat Magallanes, and the schooner Covadonga. Peruvian naval power relied on the armored frigate Independencia (3,500 tons, armor of 4.5 inches, 12 knots.) and the monitor Huáscar (1,745 tons, armor of 4.5 inch, 10–11 knots). The fleet was completed by the corvette Unión, the gunboat Pilcomayo, and the fluvial monitors BAP Atahualpa and BAP Manco Cápac. (See section Comparison below). Shorter, easier to read and includes the same information. O.K.? --Best regards, Keysanger (what?) 13:12, 1 September 2011 (UTC) I really don't see how this was an issue to begin with (nobody would have contested your edit).--MarshalN20 | Talk 13:44, 1 September 2011 (UTC) Do you agree my proposal?. --Best regards, Keysanger (what?) 14:27, 1 September 2011 (UTC) I won't create consensus over non-controversial material. You can edit the part as you see fit, but that does not mean that in the future some other editor will not be able to change it on his consideration for improvement.--MarshalN20 | Talk 16:05, 1 September 2011 (UTC) I agree, please follow the process in WP:BRD. Issues should never be raise here until you have tried to fix them yourself. Alex Harvey (talk) 07:15, 2 September 2011 (UTC) Hi Alex, MarshallN20, I understand your contribs as agreement and fixed the stuff. --Best regards, Keysanger (what?) 10:39, 2 September 2011 (UTC)