Talk:War of the Pacific/Archive 14

Archive 10

←

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

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

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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

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

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

Guy it's not neutral...Forbidden User (talk) 18:14, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

What is the beginning of a war ?

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

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

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

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

• The war began when reliable sources say it did, and for this war the sources say the war began on February 14, 1879. IP, the source I added is an award-winning author of textbooks and general reference works, and is most certainly RS. Darkness Shines (talk) 11:34, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

There are nothing wrong with the references I have given, and ya, triggered does mean start. And the other most certainly says the war started on February 14, 1879, do not accuse me of misrepresenting sources again. Darkness Shines (talk) 19:52, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

the second source does not mention the war starting on February 14, it only mentions Chilean troops arriving in Antofagasta, and for the first source you provided the word triggering is clearly a WP:WEASEL which can give multiple interpretations and is not explicit , i don't think your interpretations is valid (would you like that term 'triggering' in the article?). I would strongly suggest that you stop using quote finders which leads to questionable sources that include biographies on romance/drama authors and general history books that make glancing comments on the war. 210.50.245.62 (talk) 04:54, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

I have given three WP:RS which gives the start date of the war, until such a time as you have a RS which disputes that then this conversation is over. Darkness Shines (talk) 16:46, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

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

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

@DS:

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

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

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

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

...

Only once piece remained to fall into place to determine whether a real war would now occur or whether some sort of deal might yet be struck. This was the question of whether or not Peru would honor the 1873 “secret” treaty and come to Bolivia’s aid.

… After all, no blood had yet been shed, and there would still be a substantial swath of B. territory separating Peru from Chile…. And was it not likely that, without Peru’s support, Bolivia would simply see the wisdom in acceding to Chilean demands and avoiding the war altogether?. (Bold by Wikipedia)

...

Lavalle [Peruvian Mediatior] departed Lima on 22 February, well before the Bolivian declaration of war, but nothing irreversible was to occur for some time, so he did have some freedom of manoever in Santiago. (Bold by Wikipedia)

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

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

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

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

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

You do not get to dismiss a source just because you do not like it, not a single piece of text you have written actually disputes the sources I have supplied, cheers. Darkness Shines (talk) 16:46, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

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

@DS I ask you again to answer my questions:

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

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

• Outsider view: Just follow the cites, or simply state facts - I'm an outsider coming from the RFC and suggest just relax on this back and forth debating, it seems not usable for article purposes as none of it is citeable or presentable material and seems unnecessary. First, for WP purposes the date of start is whatever the academic consensus says it is. Second, if there is no dominant date then you can just state what consensus facts are including not naming a date. For example, there seems editor consensus that "on 14 February 1879 Chilean forces occupied Antofagasta and on 1 March Bolivia declared war' so you could just say that. I don't think the article is really improved by the phrase 'the war started on' so unless there is academically predominant date. Markbassett (talk) 04:10, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

That solution is forthcoming if the article can be reverted to this revision from july 21 before the Eduardo edit.[1]. 210.50.245.62 (talk) 09:53, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

• my view: I agree with the sentiment by Markbassett and it is true that February the 14th 1879 is no doubt one of the pivotal dates of the war, but I do not think this article is improved by using the phrase 'war started on' if you were to take into account the book "the 10 cents war" by Bruce W. Farcau which is a very thorough account of the war. I don't see any shortcomings by stating that on February 14 Chilean forces occupied Antofagasta and later on Bolivia declared war or something else to that nature. Chelios123 (talk) 13:22, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

War start on February 14

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

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

From the reputable sources you provide (the first 3) NONE explicitly say that February 14 was the "official" start date of the war. In fact those quotes give weight to keysanger's argument that a "crisis" began on February 14 with the Chilean invasion of Antofagasta with the first declaration of war and armed conflict occurring on a later date (please use keysanger's source for clarification). Furthermore I don't think using travel guides and general history books on South America helps your case. 210.50.245.62 (talk) 16:22, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

As I stated earlier by simply and mindlessly saying that February 14 was the "official" start date of the war (no reputable sources states that), this assertion automatically diminishes important facts to the reader about the initial reasons for the invasion, it virtually gives no weight to the first declaration of the war via the activation of the mutual defense treaty between Bolivia and Peru and most importantly it diminishes the important date of March 23 when the "first" act of war occurred. Like I said before the Bolivians commemorate this date as 'day of the sea'. 210.50.245.62 (talk) 16:58, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

IP, read WP:INDENT please, and note that Fredrick B. Pike, who I have previously mentioned above, and who is the winner of the American Historical Associations Bolton Prize in 1963, and who holds a distinguished graduate award in Latin American History says otherwise. Darkness Shines (talk) 17:05, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

That's the source that uses the weasel word "triggering" (look at the quote). If anything it could be a short way of implying that the invasion on February 14 "created a crisis which eventually lead to a war" but it most certainly doesn't explicitly mean "started the war" (would you like to use the word 'triggering' in the article?)Wikipedia:Avoid_weasel_words. Sources focused on the war should be used. Incidentally the administrator EdJohnston had interesting words to Eduardo in the talk page concerning this impasse and about sources. I hoped you read it. Thanks for the link BTW :) 210.50.245.62 (talk) 18:04, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Lulz, and I cannot stop LMFAO, triggered is not a weasel word, perhaps in a fevered imagination it is, I dunno?

Actually I've heard that term being used before. Please look at Archduke_Franz_Ferdinand_of_Austria#Assassination. This article very much agrees what I think it implies. what do you think? Nonetheless that source you provide only tries to generalize the war without going into detail and it should not be used to attempt to clarify contentious assertions. 210.50.245.62 (talk) 05:25, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Keysanger Résumé

We have seen that there are several authors who set the date of the beginning of the war on 14 February, but others set the date later (e.g. [2]). This is a fact and is to be considered when we write the Lede. We can also see that most of the authors, set the date in passing-by, without study of the circumstances of the moment. Only three of them analyse the situation regarding the interests of the countries and the significance of the moves. The three historians are, Farcau, Sater and Pike.

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

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

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

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

Only once piece remained to fall into place to determine whether a real war would now occur or whether some sort of deal might yet be struck. This was the question of whether or not Peru would honor the 1873 “secret” treaty and come to Bolivia’s aid.

… After all, no blood had yet been shed, and there would still be a substantial swath of B. territory separating Peru from Chile…. And was it not likely that, without Peru’s support, Bolivia would simply see the wisdom in acceding to Chilean demands and avoiding the war altogether?. (Bold by Wikipedia)

...Lavalle [Peruvian Mediatior] departed Lima on 22 February, well before the Bolivian declaration of war, but nothing irreversible was to occur for some time, so he did have some freedom of manoever in Santiago. (Bold by Wikipedia)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Three editors (IP-user, Markbassett, and Keysanger) have argued for a comprehnsive description of the facts on and after 14 February. The version [3] is the version to be used. --Keysanger (Talk) 16:47, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

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

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

Follow authors, not made-up consensus

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

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

• Nation Shapes: The Story Behind the World's Borders the author writes "The war began after Chile occupied the city of Antofagasta, which was Bolivia's only port on the Pacific Ocean"
  • AUTHOR: Professor Fred Shelley, political geography, "Professor and Chair, Department of Geography, University of Oklahoma, 2004-present"

• Andean Tragedy the author writes "The War of the Pacific can be divided into six periods. The first, and shortest, began with Chile's capture of the Bolivian seaport of Antofagasta in February 1870 and ended a few days later when Santiago had occupied the rest of the Atacama Desert"
  • AUTHOR: Professor William Sater, "professor emeritus of history at California State University-Long Beach".

• The United States and the Andean Republics: Peru, Bolivia, and Ecuador the author writes "Chile broke off diplomatic relations and on February 14, 1879, landed troops that took possession of Antofagasta, thus triggering the War of the Pacific"
  • AUTHOR: Fredrick B. Pike, winner of the American Historical Association's 1963 Bolton Prize, holds a distinguished graduate award from the University of Texas Institute of Latin American Studies.

• Bolivia y Chile: Desatando Nudos the author writes (page 66) "La invasion chilena de Antofagasta producida el 14 de febrero de 1879 dio inicio a la Guerra del Pacifico." in English: "The Chile invasion of Antofagasta, produced on 14 February of 1879 gave start to the War of the Pacific"
  • AUTHOR: Fernando Salazar-Paredes is a Bolivian lawyer and scholar, ambassador of Bolivia at the Organization American States (OEA) from 1982-1985.

• The World Book Encyclopedia the author writes (page 315) "The War of the Pacific began as a quarrel between Bolivia and Chile over control of certain Bolivian nitrate deposits. As a result of the dispute, Chile invaded Bolivia in 1879, marking the start of the war."
  • AUTHOR: A Wikipedia page on the book supporting reliability World Book Encyclopedia.

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

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

@Ramirez: You repeat continuously the same error: to deliver sources with a passing-by mention of the issue. I want to help you with a example. There is a lot of books, most travel guides, that states that Cape Horn is the southernmost Island of America. If you gather all of them, you would write in the respective article that Cape Horn is the Southernmost Island. It is not. The Diego Ramirez Islands are the southernmost Islands of the American continent. In order to obtain the best information you have to gather information from the books that deal especially with this issue, in this case with Geography and with an academic pretension. Read please WP:CONTEXTMATTERS, especially The reliability of a source depends on context. Each source must be carefully weighed to judge whether it is reliable for the statement being made in the Wikipedia article and is an appropriate source for that content. In general, the more people engaged in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the writing, the more reliable the publication.... A professor of Geography, a lawyer, and a Encyclopedia are not good enough for our article. Only Farcau, and Sater deal with the issue of the discussion, and Pike also, partially. We have seen that they (3) support the case that the occupation of Antofagasta didn't begin the war, no fights, no deaths but mediation and the possibility of avert the war, see above in Résumé. Please, stop delivering further passing-by citations, it is getting boring and possibly disruptive editing. --Keysanger (Talk) 19:56, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Article belong to Wikipedia not you or me, so this not "our article".

So far you only present Farcau as source. All you do is find ways to ignore other sources that have majority view.

Yeah CONTEXT MATTERS. You are one taking statements out of context.

Sater clearly states first phase of war starts with invasion of Antofagasta.

Farcau writes "Only once piece remained to fall into place to determine whether a real war would now occur or whether some sort of deal might yet be struck". Important word is real war, meaning that war was already in place but "not real" because no blood shed.

I provide sources. User:Darkness Shines provides sources. You provide boring argumentation with personal bias and original conclusion.

user:Keysanger is not an academic source. user:Keysanger this is not your article. Eduardo Eddy Ramirez (talk) 20:17, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Funny, but Farcau statement is like Pinochio. He wants to be a "real boy". But Pinochio still a boy. Farcau says "real war" not occur. But war still going on. Eduardo Eddy Ramirez (talk) 20:57, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

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

• February 14, 1879, Chilean troops invade and occupy the city of Antofagasta but no armed conflict occur, no war declaration made but nonetheless a diplomatic crisis arose
• by the end of February the first war declaration was made by Bolivia
• first armed conflict started on March 23 ('day of the sea')

I chose to paraphrase because this section is getting way too long. But if February 14 is the start date of the war then clearly that assertion contradicts the three statements above. Surely changes are needed to be made in order to validate the "corrected" start date of the war.

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

What books? You present only Farcau. And you present him wrong.

Declaration of war is not needed for war start. Many wars take place in history without one even made.

user:Keysanger is not reliable source. Pike, Shelley, Sater, Salazar-Paredes are. Farcau too, when read right (not Keysanger interpretation). Eduardo Eddy Ramirez (talk) 21:18, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

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

Sources used

===Sources stating shallow-brained that "the war started/began on 14 February"===

• Snodgrass, Mary Ellen: "Isabel Allende: A Literary Companion"
• The World Book Encyclopedia the author writes (page 315) "The War of the Pacific began as a quarrel between Bolivia and Chile over control of certain Bolivian nitrate deposits. As a result of the dispute, Chile invaded Bolivia in 1879, marking the start of the war."
• Bolivia y Chile: Desatando Nudos, the author writes (page 66) "La invasion chilena de Antofagasta producida el 14 de febrero de 1879 dio inicio a la Guerra del Pacifico." in English: "The Chile invasion of Antofagasta, produced on 14 February of 1879 gave start to the War of the Pacific"
• The Rough Guide to Bolivia, the author writes "Early the next year Chilean forces began the War of the Pacific, occupying the entire Bolivian coastline - where the population was in any case already two-thirds Chilean - and invading Peru, which was allied to Bolivia"
• Andean Tragedy, the author writes "The War of the Pacific can be divided into six periods. The first, and shortest, began with Chile's capture of the Bolivian seaport of Antofagasta in February 1870 and ended a few days later when Santiago had occupied the rest of the Atacama Desert"
• The United States and the Andean Republics: Peru, Bolivia, and Ecuador, the author writes "Chile broke off diplomatic relations and on February 14, 1879, landed troops that took possession of Antofagasta, thus triggering the War of the Pacific"
• Chile: The Bradt Travel Guide, the author writes "The city [of Antofagasta] was occupied by Chile at the start of the war [of the pacific] and never looked back"
• Chile and Easter Island, the author writes "War of the Pacific begins as Chileans occupy the port-city of Antofagasta"
• Historical Dictionary of Chile, the author writes "Chile occupied Antofagasta in February 1879 (the immediate cause of the War of the Pacific)"
• Lines in the Sand, the author writes "The nitrate bearing territories of Antofagasta and Tarapaca were the real and direct causes of the war," affirmed Chilean Minister of Foreign Affairs Jose Manuel Balmaceda in a circular issued from his office in December 1881"
• Nation Shapes: The Story Behind the World's Borders, the author writes "The war began after Chile occupied the city of Antofagasta, which was Bolivia's only port on the Pacific Ocean"

===Sources stating shallow-brained that the war started on another day or situation===

• [4] La guerra se desarrolló en varias etapas, siendo la primera la campaña marítima, en la que se produjo el famoso Combate Naval de Iquique.
• [5] La primera etapa de la contienda se extendió hasta el 8 de octubre de 1879 y se caracterizó por la lucha por el dominio del mar entre las escuadras de Perú y Chile
• [6] The war began at sea, when Chilean warships blockaded Peruvian and Bolivian ports.
• [7], En torno a los Orígenes de La Guerra del Pacífico, Luis Ortega, El 5 de abril de 1879 se inició oficialmente una guerra que por cinco años enfrentó a Bolivia y Perú, por un lado, y a Chile, por otro.
• [8] Más tarde, el 5 de abril de ese mismo año, cuando Perú reconoció la existencia de un tratado secreto con Bolivia, Chile decidió declarar la guerra a ambos países. Así, comienza la Guerra del Pacífico.
• [9] Chile no quería ir a la guerra, pero cuando quedó al descubierto que en 1873 Bolivia había firmado con el Perú un pacto secreto que los obligaba a respaldarse mutuamente ante "toda agresión del exterior", el ministro de Relaciones Exteriores chileno declaró que "la guerra es el único camino que nos queda".
• [10] The "Saltpetre War," referring to the desert’s nitrate deposits, officially began in February 1879 when Bolivia threatened to tax a Chilean mining operation in the port city of Antofagasta and in doing so broke a recently agreed treaty

===Sources with in-depth examination of the start of the war===

We also have known several valuable in-depth examinations giving a full account of the surrounding conditions of the 14. February regarding the begin of the war.

• es:Nelson Manrique, "La guerra del pacífico: una revisión crítica." in a comment by Mariano Chiappe in [11] states that:

El acto de fuerza de chile en Antofagasta provocó una febril actividad diplomática. El gobierno peruano trató por todos los medios de conseguir que el conflicto se solucionara por medio de un arbitraje, pues sabía que de desencadenarse la guerra se veía inevitablemente implicado.

(transl.: The Chilean act of force started a frantic diplomatic activity. The Peruvian government tried by any means to resolve the conflict by mediation, for they know that if the war started, Peru would be inescapable envolved)

• Alejandro Reyes Flores, "Relaciones internacionales en el Pacifico Sur", en "La Guerra del Pacifico", published by Universidad Nacional Mayor de San Marcos, Lima, 1979 page 120-123:

El Peru opto por las negociaciones, que no gusta a Bolivia. Tambien Chile esperaba o alentaba un golpe militar en Bolivia, que al parecer, le iba a favorecer. Todo ello inclino a Chile a aceptar la mediacion, pero esta, no podia prolongarse por mucho tiempo, puesto que favorecia al Peru en sus apresto militares de ultima hora. Ademas, Chile necesitaba un poco de tiempo para presentar al Peru como "perfido" y preparar psicologicamente a su pueblo sobre la guerra que ya era inevitable (transl.:Peru chose to mediate ..., Chile needed time to ...)

El presidente chileno el 24 de marzo de 1879 manifestaba a Lavalle [the Peruvian mediatior] lo siguiente: ... pero que no existiendo realmente ningun motivo de guerra entre Peru y Chile, cuyos comunes intereses exigian el siempre ir de acuerdo, no veia por que se debia llegar a tan dolorosa extremidad y que todo podia evitarse con la simple declaracion de neutralidad por parte del Peru (transl.: ... Pinto said: there are no reasons to make a war ... all what we need is a Peruvian declaration of neutrality ...)

Lavalle en entrevista con Pinto [Chilean President] le manifestaba: "Pero asegurandole nuevamente por mi parte que esa declaracion de neutralidad que solicita del Peru, el Peru no debia, no podia, ni queria hacerla, y que veia con profundo pesar que las cosas se acercaban a un doloroso y sangriento termino.

Y la guerra se hizo presente en el Pacifico Sur. ( Transl.: And the war came to the South Pacific)

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

Only once piece remained to fall into place to determine whether a real war would now occur or whether some sort of deal might yet be struck. This was the question of whether or not Peru would honor the 1873 “secret” treaty and come to Bolivia’s aid.

… After all, no blood had yet been shed, and there would still be a substantial swath of B. territory separating Peru from Chile…. And was it not likely that, without Peru’s support, Bolivia would simply see the wisdom in acceding to Chilean demands and avoiding the war altogether?. (Bold by Wikipedia)

...Lavalle [Peruvian Mediatior] departed Lima on 22 February, well before the Bolivian declaration of war, but nothing irreversible was to occur for some time, so he did have some freedom of manoever in Santiago. (Bold by Wikipedia)

• W. Sater "Andean Tragedy", regarding the events after the 14 February 1879:

page 28: Only on 5 April did Santiago reciprocate, plunging South America's west coast into what became known as the War of the Pacific, a conflict that lasted until 1884.

• Fredrick B. Pike, "The United States and the Andean Republics: Peru, Bolivia, and Ecuador", we read (p. 128) that the occupation of Antofagasta was the "triggering" of the WotP. But in the next page he wrote "Mariano Ignacio Prado ... dispatched a mission to Santiago to seek a formula for preserving peace."

• Jorge Basadre, "La Guerra con Chile":

page 28 Chapter "La mediacion del Peru: La mision Lavalle": Es cierta, seguramente, la angustia del gobierno peruano para ganar tiempo; pero no sólo para que el país se preparara para la guerra, sino también, si era posible para aplazarla. (transl.: For sure, the efforts of the Peruvian government, not only to prepare the war but also to postpone it)

page 45: Ambos convinieron en que la guerra era inminente. (transl.: both [Chilean Foreign Affairs Minister Domingo Santa Maria and Peruvian Mediatior Lavalle] agreed that the war was imminent)

Can you stop posting wallsotext constantly, and what is "shallow-brained" all about? Darkness Shines (talk) 17:31, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Shallow-brained . Talk to me, if you need more English. --Keysanger (Talk) 16:03, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Keysanger is making up things. Peru sends representatives so that it can keep peace between Peru and Chile. Peru had secret treaty with Bolivia. Peru was looking after own interests. Invasion Antofagasta triggers war, starts war, begins war, whatever you call it. That is what the academics say that is what Wikipedia should say. Eduardo Eddy Ramirez (talk) 17:22, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

• Uninvolved Party Opinion There are a couple of things I noticed here... First, there is wikilawyering going on about two issues. First, it doesn't matter if a source's primary focus is on an author, if it addresses the war and is written by a reliable party, it's a reliable source. There's no policy that says we can't use it. That being said, I think some evidence that it actually does address the subject is not too much to ask for, as not all wikipedians can run out and purchase a book every time someone claims it says something. Second, there's also an issue surrounding the word 'triggering.' To this I can only ask "Are you serious?" The use and meaning of the word in this context is not at all ambiguous. In fact, if you disagree, feel free to go to this link and find a definition for 'trigger' as a verb that does not mean 'cause'. Good luck.

Finally, there's the issue of what goes in the lead section... Is it really too much to ask that the start of the war be given a bit more ambiguously than a specific day? I don't see any dispute over when the Bolivians declared war, which would be the 'official' start of the war. So say in the lead section that "The war started in February or March of 1879." and be done with it. Then in the body, mention the controversy.MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 13:14, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

• Uninvolved Party Opinion Wikilawyering is very prominent here, though rather unilaterally. By the way, this should not be on WP:AN/RFC, trying to force a closure constitutes WP:POINT. I wonder why someone has the right to define who is "shallow-brained" and who is "working in-depth". Forbidden User (talk) 18:14, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Request to close the discussion

Hello EdJohnston,

I consider the discussion Talk:War_of_the_Pacific#RfC: Which are the relevant facts for the LEDE regarding the 14 February 1879? (see above) as finished.

According to WP:DCL I request you to apply the reached agreement to revert to [12], the last version before Ramirez changes and to close this discussion.

The second paragraph of the Lede will be:

The crisis sharpened on February 14, 1879 when Chilean armed forces occupied the port city of Antofagasta, as the Bolivian authorities pretended to auction the confiscated property of Chilean CSFA.

instead of the current protected:

The War of the Pacific started on February 14, 1879(ref name=Snodgrass)Snodgrass, Mary Ellen (2013). Isabel Allende: A Literary Companion. McFarland. p. 312. ISBN 978-0786471270.(/ref) when Chilean armed forces occupied the port city of Antofagasta, as the Bolivian authorities pretended to auction the confiscated property of Chilean CSFA

(This indented paragraph has been added subsequently. --Keysanger (Talk) 20:22, 9 August 2014 (UTC))

Six editors have given their opinions about the question in the RfC. Four editors agree that the events on the 14 February 1879 aren't to be set as the beginning of the war (that is to keep the last version before the Ramirez change). Two editors want to keep the current protected version.

There have been several contributions of different weight about the events before, during and after 14 February in Antofagasta.

Sources stating that "the war started/began on 14 February"

• Snodgrass, Mary Ellen: "Isabel Allende: A Literary Companion"
• The World Book Encyclopedia the author writes (page 315) "The War of the Pacific began as a quarrel between Bolivia and Chile over control of certain Bolivian nitrate deposits. As a result of the dispute, Chile invaded Bolivia in 1879, marking the start of the war."
• Bolivia y Chile: Desatando Nudos, the author writes (page 66) "La invasion chilena de Antofagasta producida el 14 de febrero de 1879 dio inicio a la Guerra del Pacifico." in English: "The Chile invasion of Antofagasta, produced on 14 February of 1879 gave start to the War of the Pacific"
• The Rough Guide to Bolivia, the author writes "Early the next year Chilean forces began the War of the Pacific, occupying the entire Bolivian coastline - where the population was in any case already two-thirds Chilean - and invading Peru, which was allied to Bolivia"
• Andean Tragedy, the author writes "The War of the Pacific can be divided into six periods. The first, and shortest, began with Chile's capture of the Bolivian seaport of Antofagasta in February 1870 and ended a few days later when Santiago had occupied the rest of the Atacama Desert"
• The United States and the Andean Republics: Peru, Bolivia, and Ecuador, the author writes "Chile broke off diplomatic relations and on February 14, 1879, landed troops that took possession of Antofagasta, thus triggering the War of the Pacific"
• Chile: The Bradt Travel Guide, the author writes "The city [of Antofagasta] was occupied by Chile at the start of the war [of the pacific] and never looked back"
• Chile and Easter Island, the author writes "War of the Pacific begins as Chileans occupy the port-city of Antofagasta"
• Historical Dictionary of Chile, the author writes "Chile occupied Antofagasta in February 1879 (the immediate cause of the War of the Pacific)"
• Lines in the Sand, the author writes "The nitrate bearing territories of Antofagasta and Tarapaca were the real and direct causes of the war," affirmed Chilean Minister of Foreign Affairs Jose Manuel Balmaceda in a circular issued from his office in December 1881"
• Nation Shapes: The Story Behind the World's Borders, the author writes "The war began after Chile occupied the city of Antofagasta, which was Bolivia's only port on the Pacific Ocean"

Sources stating that the war started on another day or situation

• [13] La guerra se desarrolló en varias etapas, siendo la primera la campaña marítima, en la que se produjo el famoso Combate Naval de Iquique.
• [14] La primera etapa de la contienda se extendió hasta el 8 de octubre de 1879 y se caracterizó por la lucha por el dominio del mar entre las escuadras de Perú y Chile
• [15] The war began at sea, when Chilean warships blockaded Peruvian and Bolivian ports.
• [16], En torno a los Orígenes de La Guerra del Pacífico, Luis Ortega, El 5 de abril de 1879 se inició oficialmente una guerra que por cinco años enfrentó a Bolivia y Perú, por un lado, y a Chile, por otro.
• [17] Más tarde, el 5 de abril de ese mismo año, cuando Perú reconoció la existencia de un tratado secreto con Bolivia, Chile decidió declarar la guerra a ambos países. Así, comienza la Guerra del Pacífico.
• [18] Chile no quería ir a la guerra, pero cuando quedó al descubierto que en 1873 Bolivia había firmado con el Perú un pacto secreto que los obligaba a respaldarse mutuamente ante "toda agresión del exterior", el ministro de Relaciones Exteriores chileno declaró que "la guerra es el único camino que nos queda".
• [19] The "Saltpetre War," referring to the desert’s nitrate deposits, officially began in February 1879 when Bolivia threatened to tax a Chilean mining operation in the port city of Antofagasta and in doing so broke a recently agreed treaty

As you see, they are superficially mentions of the beginning of the war and some of them use confuse terms as "triggering", "first phase" (primera etapa), "immediate cause", etc. Others say nothing, like "The nitrate bearing territories of Antofagasta and Tarapaca were the real and direct causes of the war", others are travel guides or, like a book written by Mary Ellen Snodgrass, who holds degrees in English, Latin, psychology, and education of gifted children. She teaches English and Latin at Lenoir Rhyne University. It is simple WP:Cherrypicking.

WP::CHERRYPICKING states: In the context of editing an article, cherrypicking, in a negative sense, means selecting information without including contradictory or significant qualifying information from the same source and consequently misrepresenting what the source says. This applies both to quotations and to paraphrasings.

Sources with in-depth examination of the start of the war including contradictory or significant qualifying information

We also have known several valuable in-depth examinations giving a full account of the surrounding conditions of the 14. February regarding the begin of the war.

• es:Nelson Manrique, "La guerra del pacífico: una revisión crítica." in a comment by Mariano Chiappe in [20] states that:

El acto de fuerza de chile en Antofagasta provocó una febril actividad diplomática. El gobierno peruano trató por todos los medios de conseguir que el conflicto se solucionara por medio de un arbitraje, pues sabía que de desencadenarse la guerra se veía inevitablemente implicado.

(transl.: The Chilean act of force started a frantic diplomatic activity. The Peruvian government tried by any means to resolve the conflict by mediation, for they know that if the war started, Peru would be inescapable envolved)

• Alejandro Reyes Flores, "Relaciones internacionales en el Pacifico Sur", en "La Guerra del Pacifico", published by Universidad Nacional Mayor de San Marcos, Lima, 1979 page 120-123:

El Peru opto por las negociaciones, que no gusta a Bolivia. Tambien Chile esperaba o alentaba un golpe militar en Bolivia, que al parecer, le iba a favorecer. Todo ello inclino a Chile a aceptar la mediacion, pero esta, no podia prolongarse por mucho tiempo, puesto que favorecia al Peru en sus apresto militares de ultima hora. Ademas, Chile necesitaba un poco de tiempo para presentar al Peru como "perfido" y preparar psicologicamente a su pueblo sobre la guerra que ya era inevitable (transl.:Peru chose to mediate ..., Chile needed time to ...)

El presidente chileno el 24 de marzo de 1879 manifestaba a Lavalle [the Peruvian mediatior] lo siguiente: ... pero que no existiendo realmente ningun motivo de guerra entre Peru y Chile, cuyos comunes intereses exigian el siempre ir de acuerdo, no veia por que se debia llegar a tan dolorosa extremidad y que todo podia evitarse con la simple declaracion de neutralidad por parte del Peru (transl.: ... Pinto said: there are no reasons to make a war ... all what we need is a Peruvian declaration of neutrality ...) (primary source but cited by a secondary source)

Lavalle en entrevista con Pinto [Chilean President] le manifestaba: "Pero asegurandole nuevamente por mi parte que esa declaracion de neutralidad que solicita del Peru, el Peru no debia, no podia, ni queria hacerla, y que veia con profundo pesar que las cosas se acercaban a un doloroso y sangriento termino. (primary source but cited by a secondary source)

Y la guerra se hizo presente en el Pacifico Sur. ( Transl.: And the war came to the South Pacific)

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

Only once piece remained to fall into place to determine whether a real war would now occur or whether some sort of deal might yet be struck. This was the question of whether or not Peru would honor the 1873 “secret” treaty and come to Bolivia’s aid.

… After all, no blood had yet been shed, and there would still be a substantial swath of B. territory separating Peru from Chile…. And was it not likely that, without Peru’s support, Bolivia would simply see the wisdom in acceding to Chilean demands and avoiding the war altogether?.

...Lavalle [Peruvian Mediatior] departed Lima on 22 February, well before the Bolivian declaration of war, but nothing irreversible was to occur for some time, so he did have some freedom of manoever in Santiago.

• W. Sater "Andean Tragedy", regarding the events after the 14 February 1879:

page 28: Only on 5 April did Santiago reciprocate, plunging South America's west coast into what became known as the War of the Pacific, a conflict that lasted until 1884.

• Fredrick B. Pike, "The United States and the Andean Republics: Peru, Bolivia, and Ecuador", we read (p. 128) that the occupation of Antofagasta was the "triggering" of the WotP. But in the next page he wrote "Mariano Ignacio Prado ... dispatched a mission to Santiago to seek a formula for preserving peace."

• Jorge Basadre, "La Guerra con Chile":

page 28 Chapter "La mediacion del Peru: La mision Lavalle": Es cierta, seguramente, la angustia del gobierno peruano para ganar tiempo; pero no sólo para que el país se preparara para la guerra, sino también, si era posible para aplazarla. (transl.: For sure, the efforts of the Peruvian government, not only to prepare the war but also to postpone it)

page 45: Ambos convinieron en que la guerra era inminente. (transl.: both [Chilean Foreign Affairs Minister Domingo Santa Maria and Peruvian Mediatior Lavalle] agreed that the war was imminent)

Reasons given in the discussion

War to become known as one, must entail some degree of confrontation using weapons and other military technology and equipment by armed forces employing military tactics and operational art within the broad military strategy subject to military logistics and it is generally characterised by extreme violence, social disruption and economic destruction. A simple occupation isn't a war, e.g. in the history of the Falkland islands there have been a French, a Spanish, a British, an Argentine, an US-American, an Argentine (again), a British (again), an Argentine (again) and a British occupation, that is 9 occupations but only one war.

All editors (except Darkness Shines) agree that on 14 February there was no fight and the Chilean troops were welcome in Antofagasta by the (Chilean 83%) majority of the population, and that the first battle of the war was the Battle of Topater on March 23, 1879 between Chile and Bolivia (27 killed) and that the Peruvian mediation continued until the first days of April 1879.

Sources vary on their definition of when the conflict began, on 14 February, with the naval campaign, with the Chilean Declaration of War (5. April), or "in February 1879 when Bolivia threatened to tax a Chilean mining operation".

The two defenders of the current protected version have only brought forward the argument of "(their) sources say that began on 14. February". They were unable to support based on RS that war actions began on that day. User Darkness Shines tried even to convince us that there had been a "Combat of Antofagasta", but he delivered no RS for that. Such a combat has never occurred as Eddy states: [21] Is true that Antofagasta was happy to have Chile take control.

On the other hand, those who prefer a nuanced description of the events have considered a wide and deep analysis of the reliable sources.

These sources state, with different wording ("if the war started", "a real war would occur", "after all, no blood had yet shed", "to postpone it", "but nothing irreversible was to occur for some time", "to seek a formula for preserving peace", or "the war was imminent") that weeks after the 14. February there was no war between Chile and Bolivia-Peru.

Consensus

The majority of editors voted for a nuanced description of the events on 14 February in the LEDE, but in my honest opinion, the consensus arises from the quality of the sources and reasons delivered by the majority of the editors.

Supporting a nuanced description of the events on 14 February in the LEDE:

1. IP-user says [22] I would personally want the article reverted back to its state before the edit by eduardo [Ramirez]
2. Markbassett says [23] First, for WP purposes the date of start is whatever the academic consensus says it is. Second, if there is no dominant date then you can just state what consensus facts are including not naming a date.
3. Chelios123 says [24] I agree with the sentiment by Markbassett and it is true that February the 14th 1879 is no doubt one of the pivotal dates of the war, but I do not think this article is improved by using the phrase 'war started on' if you were to take into account the book "the 10 cents war" by Bruce W. Farcau which is a very thorough account of the war. I don't see any shortcomings by stating that on February 14 Chilean forces occupied Antofagasta and later on Bolivia declared war or something else to that nature
4. Keysanger (me) I support IP-User's proposal

Supporting no mention of other facts in the LEDE (The war began on 14. February 1879. (Finish))

1. Darkness Shines says [25] The war began when reliable sources say it did, and for this war the sources say the war began on February 14, 1879.
2. Eduardo Eddy Ramirez. [26] I think evidence overwhelming favors war start on February 14 1879, when Chile invades Antofagasta

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

• Oppose reverting at all, RFCs run for thirty days, and I see no consensus to remove well cited information. Darkness Shines (talk) 22:08, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
• Not done: This RfC looks a bit contentious, so it should probably be closed by an uninvolved editor before any edit requests are carried out. (Edit requests are only for edits that already have consensus.) If it doesn't look like there will be any more discussion in the RfC, I would list it for closure at WP:ANRFC (although it seems to be a bit backlogged at the moment). Also, Keysanger, Darkness Shines has a point about the walls-o'-text; you'll probably find that you can persuade more people if you keep your posts shorter. Best — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 14:15, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose Keysanger writes long text because he makes up own conclusions. This not right. Keysanger no academic, no historian. Eduardo Eddy Ramirez (talk) 17:24, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Pretended

The lengthy dialogue on the date of the start of the way all seems to have ignored a minor bias issue that occurs in the same sentence:

The War of the Pacific started on February 14, 1879 when Chilean armed forces occupied the port city of Antofagasta, as the Bolivian authorities 'pretended' to auction the confiscated property of Chilean CSFA.

What exactly does it mean to pretend to sell off the confiscated property? This appears to be an attempt to claim the seizure and sale of the Chilean company's property never occurred. Since this act has been cited as the supposed casus belli for the conflict, it seems a crucial point. While having no dog in this fight myself, the Chilean company's property was either seized by the Bolivian authorities and sold to other parties, or it wasn't. The words themselves call for explanation. What was meant and what evidence substantiates that the property either was or was not seized and sold. --Egudahl (talk) 18:35, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

To DRN

I opened a discussion regarding the 14 February 1879 in WP:DRN#War of the Pacific . All editors are encouraged to participate positively and I hope we find a solution for the article. Regards, --Keysanger (Talk) 09:20, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

The DRN case was "closed as failed". The permanent link is here. --Keysanger (talk) 07:59, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Consequences : Bolivia

Please stop the write and rewrite of proposals and lets look for a NPOV.

I don't see many or insurmountable differences between both proposals:

item	Proposal 1	Proposal 2
1	anti-Chilean sentiments runs deep in Bolivian society	(no replace)
2	Political propaganda have often attributed Bolivia's problems with its landlocked condition	Many of the country's problems are attributed to its landlocked condition;
3	recovering the seacoast is often seen as the solution to repair historical injustices in addition to other difficulties	recovering the seacoast is often seen as the solution to these difficulties
References

item 1

I think that must be said anti-Chilean sentiments runs deep in Bolivian society. IMO, that doesn't need even a reference. --Keysanger (talk) 09:19, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Negative sentiments arising from the war and its consequences run deep in the three countries, so to save repetition, a reference to this fact should be placed in the section introduction, not in the country subsections, let alone in only one of them. Windroff (talk) 21:50, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

In the three countries likewise?, Have you a RS that corroborate it?.

I didn't say likewise. Here's a source for Bolivia and Peru: Henderson, P., The Course of Andean History, University of New Mexico Press, p. 193-194. Discord between Bolivia and Peru, and the less antagonist Chile could be left for the Consequences article, for brevity's sake.

item 2

Let see number 2:

@58.178.202.160: Can we accept "are attributed" instead of "Political propaganda", do we need a subject? --Keysanger (talk) 09:13, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

@Windroff: Who is the subject in "are attributed". If not the "Political propaganda, who then? --Keysanger (talk) 09:13, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

The lack of a sovereign coast and its neighboring territory is quite obviously an economical and geopolitical disadvantage for Bolivia. Demeaning the problems arising from such limitations (in place over a 130 years period) as the mere creation of "political propaganda" is blatant POV. If the lack of a subject is seen as a problem, then the paragraph could be replaced with something akin to "Some authors have attributed many of the country's problems to its landlocked condition;", which is both accurate and generic enough for an introduction; a more in-depth discussion could be added to the "Consequences" article. Windroff (talk) 21:50, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

I think it isn't obvious that the lack of a sovereign coast and its neighboring territory is quite obviously an economical and geopolitical disadvantage. Switzerland, Austria and Czechoslovakia seem to do it right well. --Keysanger (talk) 17:24, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

On to the discussed paragraph, here are a few books supporting my wording: Child, J., Regional Cooperation for Development and the Peaceful Settlement of Disputes in Latin America, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, p. 109; Morales, W., A Brief History of Bolivia, Infobase Publishing, pp. xxix-xxxx; IBRD staff, Strengthening Bolivian Competitiveness: Export Diversification and Inclusive Growth, World Bank Publications, p. 106)

To address your claim: outside of the compact, wealthy and trade-intensive Europe, most nations lacking a seashore are not doing so well. In fact, more than a half of all landlocked developing countries are on the UN's "least developed countries list"

There is plenty of bibliography demonstrating how being landlocked makes countries economically uncompetitive on a large scale (e.g.: Uprety, K., The Transit Regime for Landlocked States: International Law and Development, World Bank Publications, p. 3; Glassner, M., The United Nations at Work, Greenwood, pp. 136, 149, 151-152; IBRD staff, Reshaping Economic Geography, World Bank Publications, p. 101) Windroff (talk) 00:10, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

I found following in a German study [27]:

Bolivia's drive towards the sea is based in several motivations which drive the latently as well as vehemently issued demands:

1. processing a collective trauma,
2. projection space for the Bolivian nationalism,
3. outlet for the individual, collective and national problems of the country,
4. effective political tool in election campaings,
5. not to accept Bolivia's territorial losses without resistance
6. to overcome the socio-economical problems of the country --Keysanger (talk) 20:57, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

That article also describes the negative economic effects of being landlocked, and specifically addresses and debunks your Switzerland fallacy, citing Sachs. Windroff (talk) 00:10, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Moreover, also the link to Bolpress states that "El gobierno del Presidente, Evo Morales, y la alcaldía paceña, preparan varios actos de recordación que tienen el objetivo de reavivar el patriotismo, forjar la unidad nacional y mostrar al mundo la existencia de un tema pendiente entre Bolivia y Chile que debe ser encarado y solucionado". What is "reavivar el patriotismo, forjar la unidad nacional" if not propaganda?. Also the Neue Zürcher Zeitung (WP: "It has a reputation as a quality newspaper and as the Swiss newspaper of record, the newspaper is known for its detailed reports on international affairs, stock exchange, and the intellectual, in-depth style of its articles") comment the use of the issue [28]: "Many critics presume that the government pursuit mainly also purposes in the day to day politics ..." ("Viele Kritiker vermuten, dass die Regierung mit ihren Bemühungen vor allem auch innenpolitische Ziele verfolgt, indem sie mit dem Thema nationalistische Gefühle schürt".). There is a long list of sources but you probably know them.

Actually, I am not keen to write every of the items, it is not the duty of this article and here isn't enough place. But some words about or a hint to the "use" of the problem should be done. Can you write a better proposal? --Keysanger (talk) 06:46, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

There's no need to use the loaded term "propaganda" when "encouragement of nationalism and national union" accurately reflects the reference content. The newspaper article alludes to "critics" suggesting that the government is pursuing "nationalist sentiments with purposes of internal politics". This is what should be added.

By the way, the article also underscores that economic motivations outweigh political ones, again recalling Sachs' paper and his estimation of 1.5% of GDP lost annually for lack of a sovereign shore.

I agree to add a line with a sociological approach to the issue, as long as it stays neutral, i.e. that it's not worded in such a way as to conceal the underlying factual handicap of staying landlocked, referenced above.

Just one more thing: since you asked us to "Please stop the write and rewrite of proposals and lets look for a NPOV", please do not edit the article yourself until a consensus is reached. You can add your proposals right here. Windroff (talk) 00:10, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

I see a difference between to revert and to propose a new wording. But I agree it is better to do it in the talk page.

What do you think about my proposal:

After the 1904 treaty, which put an end to a war between Bolivia and Chile, Bolivia became a landlocked nation with the right to tax-free transport of goods, and duty-free access to northern Chilean ports. Since the 1920s, when she sought to be included in the negotiations over Tacna and Arica, Bolivia has attempted to revert the treaty and regain a sovereign port at the Pacific Ocean in order to resolve many of the country's problems that are attributed to its landlocked condition. This quest has been the dominant goal of its foreign policy but has been also selectively manipulated by their politicians to enhance their domestic political support. Chile offered 1975 a sovereign strip north of Arica but Peru, with power of veto over any further territorial changes, refused. --Keysanger (talk) 12:33, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

I made some changes to better reflect the sources, and expanded upon the failed 1975 agreement, the economic significance of becoming landlocked, and the socio-political interpretations of Bolivia's demands, to put its motives into a wider perspective:

The 1904 treaty formally ended the war between Bolivia and Chile. Therein Bolivia recognized Chilean ownership of Atacama in exchange for the right to tax-free transport of goods, and duty-free access to northern Chilean ports.

Despite these and other trade concessions, the loss of the seashore remains a deeply emotional and practical issue for Bolivians. Many of the country's problems are attributed to its landlocked condition, whose negative economic impact has been estimated to be between 1.5% and 2% of its GDP, annually.

Since the 1920s, when it sought to be included in the negotiations over Tacna and Arica, Bolivia has attempted to regain a sovereign port in the Pacific Ocean. Some authors view this quest, the dominant goal of its foreign policy, as a mechanism to process collective traumas and foster national union. Critics denounce it as a manipulation of nationalist sentiments and as a domestic political campaign tool.

In 1975 Chile offered a sovereign strip north of Arica, but requested compensations that were deemed as unacceptable by Bolivia. Having been granted veto power over any further territorial changes, Peru objected and submitted instead a counterproposal for tripartite administration of the coastal town, that Chile refused to consider. Windroff (talk) 22:16, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Adding such flights of fancy like "what could have occurred if they had borne the palm after the war they provoked" doesn't help us. It only adds more conflicts to the discussion. My proposal:

The 1904 treaty formally ended the war between Bolivia and Chile. Therein Bolivia recognized Chilean ownership of Atacama in exchange for the right to tax-free transport of goods, and duty-free access to northern Chilean ports.

Despite these and other trade concessions, the loss of the seashore remains a deeply emotional and practical issue for Bolivians. Many of the country's problems are attributed to its landlocked condition.

Since the 1920s, when it sought to be included in the negotiations over Tacna and Arica, Bolivia has attempted to regain a sovereign port in the Pacific Ocean. Some authors view this quest, the dominant goal of its foreign policy, as a mechanism to process collective traumas and foster national union, as a manipulation of nationalist sentiments and as a domestic political campaign tool.

In 1975 Chile offered a sovereign strip north of Arica. Bolivia and Peru (veto power over any further territorial changes) refused.--Keysanger (talk) 08:34, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Comments on your proposal:

The 1904 treaty formally ended the war between Bolivia and Chile. Therein Bolivia recognized Chilean ownership of Atacama in exchange for the right to tax-free transport of goods, and duty-free access to northern Chilean ports.

Despite these and other trade concessions, the loss of the seashore remains a deeply emotional and practical issue for Bolivians. Many of the country's problems are attributed to its landlocked condition.

The primary purpose of this is not to avoid conflicts, but to produce a neutral text, covering the notable facts according to what reliable sources say about them.

Far from being a "flight of fancy", a scientific estimation of the very tangible economic consequences of staying landlocked has a central place in a section dealing, precisely, about the consequences of the war.

In fact, the two German-language references that you brought to this discussion do emphasize the actual economic burden caused by isolation, along with the sociological interpretations and the criticisms that we have agreed to include in the subsection.

Since the 1920s, when it sought to be included in the negotiations over Tacna and Arica, Bolivia has attempted to regain a sovereign port in the Pacific Ocean. Some authors view this quest, the dominant goal of its foreign policy, as a mechanism to process collective traumas and foster national union, as a manipulation of nationalist sentiments and as a domestic political campaign tool.

The original provided a more neutral phrasing by avoiding the jumbling of political science scholars' arguments (subject to peer review) with critics' opinions (not necessarily under academic scrutiny, and thus more exposed to politically induced commentaries); "critics" is also the word used by the Swiss newspaper. What is your rationale for removing the word?

In 1975 Chile offered a sovereign strip north of Arica. Bolivia and Peru (veto power over any further territorial changes) refused.--Keysanger (talk) 08:34, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

This oversimplification of the actual events hides the reciprocative essence of Chile's proposal. Also, the rejected Peruvian counteroffer paragraph introduced the tripartite entanglement that has been an obstacle for Bolivia's ambitions; there's no need to omit it. Windroff (talk) 22:44, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

I agree with you that we have to produce a neutral text. But, in this subsection we can only "touch" the most important ideas and wikilink to the main article Consequences of the War of the Pacific. There is a lot of themes that "could" be listed here, with a lot of views: use of the war consequences as day to day propaganda, use of the issue to link the Falklands and Beagle conflict with Bolivia, end of the caudillos after the war, treaties with Peru, Brasil and Argentina for export, the 1904 treaty, etc, etc. There's a need to omit less relevant themes. --Keysanger (talk) 11:02, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

References

item 3

in addition to other difficulties IMO, that can be dropped. The other difficulties don't belong to the scope of the article. --Keysanger (talk) 09:19, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

RSN for "History of patriotism, bravery and heroism"

I brought the case to WP:RSN#War of the Pacific. You are encouraged to participate in the discussion. --Keysanger (talk) 10:32, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Infobox Military conflict

Hi folks,

The current infobox contains a lot of data without references or arbitrarily changed. I propose to make following changes:

New infobox

War of the Pacific Peruvian, Bolivian, and Chilean territories before the war Date February 14, 1879 – October 20, 1883 (Chile-Peru Peace) Bolivia-Chile armistice in 1884; peace with Bolivia signed October 20, 1904 Location Peru and Bolivia in Pacific coast of South America Result Chilean victory, Bolivia became a landlocked country Territorial changes Litoral Department (Antofagasta) ceded by Bolivia to Chile in 1904. Tarapacá Department ceded by Peru to Chile in 1884. Puna de Atacama ceded by Bolivia/Chile to Argentina in 1889/1899 Tarata occupied by Chile in 1885, return to Peru in 1925. Arica province occupied by Chile in 1884, ceded by Peru in 1929. Tacna (Sama River) occupied by Chile in 1884, return to Peru in 1929. Belligerents Bolivia Chile Peru Commanders and leaders Presidents of Bolivia Hilarión Daza (1876–1879) Narciso Campero (1879–1884) Presidents of Chile Aníbal Pinto (1876–1881) D.Santa María (1881–1886) Presidents of Peru M.I.Prado (1876–1879) Nicolás de Piérola (1879–1881) F.García Calderón (12.Mar.1881–28.Sep.1881) L.Montero F. (1881–1883) Miguel Iglesias (North Peru 1882–1885) Strength 1879 (prewar) Bolivian Army: 1,687 soldiers Bolivian Navy: None     1880 (No militarily active) 1879 (prewar) Chilean Army: 2,440, soldiers Chilean Navy: 2 ironclads, 9 Wooden sh., 4 Torpedo boats 1880 Chilean Army: 27,000 Ante Lima 8,000 Occupation Troops. 6,000 Mainland Chilean Navy: 3 ironclads, 8 Wooden sh., 10 Torpedo boats 1879 (prewar) Peruvian Army: 5,557 soldiers Peruvian Navy: 4 ironclads, 7 Wooden sh., 2 Torpedo boats 1880 Peruvian Army: 25-35,000 soldiers (Army of Lima)      Peruvian Navy: 3 ironclads, 7 Wooden sh., 2 Torpedo boats Casualties and losses (Included in Peruvians casualties) Killed: 2,425-2,791 Wounded: 6,247-7,193 Killed: 12,934-18,213 Wounded: 7,891-7,896 Killed in action and Wounded: 4,367-10,467 References

If any one complains, please do it now and deliver the proposed data and the references. --Keysanger (talk) 11:36, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

You do not need refs in the infobox if the same is reffed in the article, which specific bits are you on about changing? Darkness Shines (talk) 12:00, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

What do you think about the changes? --Keysanger (talk) 19:10, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Economic crisis/Causes of the War

Hi DS,

I give you the reason I moved/deleted some sentences. Can you tell me why did you revert the changes? --Keysanger (talk) 13:00, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Bolivia-Peru alliance

I noticed in the right hand pane of the article that there're three belligerents listed BUT in my opinion it should only list two belligerents; Chile and the Bolivia-Peru alliance. I only put this up because in the Bosnian war article there're also three belligerents listed but in that case all three groups were fighting against each other with each group having their own individual causes. Unless I'm missing something I propose the belligerent section should only list Chile and the Bolivia-Peru alliance with a format consistent with the WW2 article. Any thoughts?58.178.167.246 (talk) 06:08, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Not a bad idea. I did it and the result isn't ugly. --Keysanger (talk) 12:12, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

About the "former soldiers of Taiping Heavenly Kingdom" issue

The cited paper in the sentence (reference 135) did not talk about Taiping soldiers coming to South America at all. Instead, I suspect that the editor of this issue was misled by a faked text made up by some Chinese in the 2000s or earlier (the text and its falsification: http://lt.cjdby.net/thread-458569-1-1.html , in Chinese).

I removed the related description here; if any of you have record of this issue in language other than Chinese, please leave me a message as I will be happy to know.

Yogomove (talk) 08:24, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Edit: I found the original addition of the issue described above by ip user 123.202.92.184, and double-confirmed that it is irrelevant to the noted reference. Yogomove (talk) 09:27, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

colonial maps before Wotp

It could have been this map, of the French marine in 1780. It shows Peru and Chile adjacent, Bolivia had no sea. --Keysanger (talk) 09:12, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

In a Bolivian newspaper called "pagina siete" they published historical maps of colonial South America in where those maps seem to contradict Bolivian claims that the nation was born with the sea. In that map it does seem to show that Chile had a border with colonial Peru and Bolivia was landlocked. Even Bolivian president Evo morales criticized the publishing of the maps as being unpatriotic. Even more astonishing the VP of Bolivia made a press conference days later outing the editor of Pagina siete of having partial Chilean ancestry with a copy of the editors family tree. Anyway Is it possible to post those maps published by pagina siete on this article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.240.179.172 (talk) 08:30, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

The issue belongs more to "Atacama dispute" than to the war, but it is an interesting one. Can you post the link to the article?. --Keysanger (talk) 11:20, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

It's difficult to find the article on the pagina siete. As soon as the maps were published the newspaper suddenly changed its views and become more Bolivian nationalist than a objective news source therefore that article link doesn't work anymore. But you if you search Google hard enough you might find the article or reporting of the article. BTW the map i attempted to delete is not a professional map but a very feeble amateur drawing and it clearly doesn't follow the protocols for maps. I won't bother to pursue the issue but take in mind what I said before about pagina siete. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.240.179.172 (talk) 12:31, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

What happened to the lead?

I don't visit this article much often. I can see many aspects that have deteriorated over months ans years. Some others have obviously improved. I find the current lead unbearable. I is way too long and include long quotes, which is not the best way of summarizing things. I suggest shortening it to half its size and to give it stability avoid controversial stuff, opinion and interpretations altogether (this can be explained with due detail) and focus on well established facts. Dentren | ^Talk 10:33, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Are you sure?. here you say the opposite. Which one is your serious opinion? --Keysanger (talk) 10:44, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

If you understood it wrong the comment you mention was mean for a apparently inexperienced newcomer that might have thought he could re-write the whole article. Dentren | ^Talk 11:05, 12 August 2015 (UTC)