Talk:War of the Pacific/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

→

Archive 10

List of Likeminas and Marshal arguments

I will bring forward your arguments as I understand it.

1. (Marshal's 1.) Surely, it is important to mention that Chile (now pay attention to this) misunderstood the "secret treaty" (You're right in saying that secret is standard) as aggresive.
2. (Marshal's 2.) if Peru and Bolivia viewed it as defensive, the treaty is therefore upon the eyes of the international community as legally defensive. Any other interpretation of this treaty as non-defensive is a misunderstanding, and should always be noted as such for correctness.
3. (Likeminas 1.) If the treaty was purely defensive from the viewpoint of Peru and Bolivia then references need to be provided stating just that. On the other hand, if the treaty was seen as secretive and/or offensive by Chile, then, the same rule applies. If we end up with both claims being verifiable by reliable sources (which I think we will) then, we should present both of them.
4. (Marshals 3.) since the treaty makes no mention of an offensive action towards any particular country, nor does it make it an aggressive statement towards a normal alliance (non-defensive); and clearly only speaks about a defensive pact: The treaty is a defensive alliance.
5. (Marshals 4.) since the treaty is legally a "Secret defensive alliance," any other mention of it as anything different is incorrect. Therefore, if you want to include that Chile saw the treaty as offensive, it should be noted that it was a misunderstanding from Chile

Are that your arguments? Do you want to bring forward others? Do you want to change some of that?. Please answer this question without personal attacks. --Keysanger (talk) 22:24, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

No. There is not more than one argument. Only one solid argument stands: The Peruvian and Bolivian alliance was defensive because several (more than 1) reliable sources claim it to be defensive. Chilean, Peruvian, and Bolivian sources claim it to be defensive. Under Wikipedia policy, when the majority of the reliable sources agree on something, that should be taken into consideration as the most accurate response to the problem.--19:19, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Now I ask, what is your argument?--//[*]MarshalN20[*]\\ (talk) 19:19, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Analysis

1. Wikipedia is not there to approve or disapprove (misunderstood/understood) the "Chilean" interpretation of the pact.
2. The conditional "if" tries to explain why the pact was defensive. That is original research.
3. Sources are to be considered, I accept it. Let me say later more about Likeminas's reasons.
4. Marshal tries again to "explain" why the pact is defensive. That is original research.
5. If the treaty is legally defensive, says Marshal. He means, I suppose so, the pact says "it is defensive". Then, OK, we write that: The pact was called defensive. That is what I want.

I think that Marshal's arguments are beside the point. I don't know what he means with "Chile", "Peru" or "Boliva". In every country there are a lot of institutions and persons that have different opinions about a issue at least in democracy. Marshal, would you be so kind to explain (a little bit) in-depth your arguments?

1. Do you think that you can explain us why the pact is defensive?
2. Do you think that the pact is legally defensive because the source says it?

Likeminas has a strong argument: if a reliable source says it, we have to accept it. I accept it. But, as in every article we have to considerer:

1. how reliable is the source
2. what says the source
3. how do we identify the source for the reader.

I want to engross the thoughts as soon as posible.

Please, comment this questions without personal attacks. --Keysanger (talk) 22:24, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm not even going to bother discussing this section. This is essentially a repetition of the above discussion. Please don't spam the talk page with repetitive discussions, Keysanger.--//[*]MarshalN20[*]\\ (talk) 19:20, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Likeminas, Marshal Arafael:

Marshal abandoned ([1]) the thesis 1), 2), 4), and 5). This was indefensible , but anyway, thank you Marshal for your sincerity.

My argument is that a pact, like a knife, is intrinsically neither defensive nor offensive, neither good nor bad, but can be interpreted as such according to circumstances. I think that Mexico could have interpret any Peru-Bolivia pact as defensive because it is far away, but Brasil could have interpret it as aggressive because of the vicinity. And that, independent of the text of the pact.

Now and at this point, I agree Likeminas selective about references.

We can inform the reader about interpretations of the pact provided that the reader realize that are that, interpretations of the pact. And the first reference is, of course, the pact self: The pact was called defensive. That is valid also for any other source. I cite again the source contributed by Arafael:

lo storico chileno Barros Arana dice nella sua cosidetta Historia de la Guerra del Pacifico, che era un Trattato di alleanza offensiva e difensiva. Questo può dare una idea del modo come si interpretano e riferiscono i fatti nel Chili.

(Bold by Keysanger)

I agree to cite references. I disagree to confuse the pact with interpretations of the pact and I disagree to use statistical methods to give a "average" of "pact-defensivity" (!).

Thank you for your interest in our work. --Keysanger (talk) 21:41, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

No. My "thesis" (They're not even "thesis"), more accurately my statements explaining why the defensive alliance stance is the correct one, have not been abandoned. They are not the root of the argument, and they have never been the root of the argument. They have always been explanations, and they stand to explain why it's logical that a defensive alliance is a defensive alliance until the end. There is no proof from your part that the alliance was ever aggressive against Chile.--//[*]MarshalN20[*]\\ (talk) 00:21, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

There can be no "circumstance interpretation" on something that is clearly defined and was clearly used as a defensive alliance. Peru and Bolivia were not the first countries to officially declare war; Chile was the first nation to officially declare war. Moreover, further clarifying the alliance to be defensive, Peru entered the War of the Pacific under the clauses of the defensive alliance (to protect the sovereignty of Bolivia's territories).--//[*]MarshalN20[*]\\ (talk) 00:21, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

The idea that the alliance was offensive towards Chile is an error. It is one of the mistakes in part of the Chilean government that led them to declare official war. Obviously, as the article explains, Peru was not ready for war and sought to find a peaceful solution to the conflict (especially after the possible Argentine alliance failed). Neither Peru or Bolivia were in a position to lead an "offensive" to Chile; the War of the Pacific can be easily summed up as Peru and Bolivia defending against an effective invading Chile (With some minor, rarely succesful counter-attacks in part of the allies). This mistake that the Peru-Bolivia alliance was offensive is apparently still ongoing. However, once again, it is an error. Wikipedia is not a place where errors should be mentioned as facts, especially if no reliable third-party sources can be found claiming the alliance to be offensive.--//[*]MarshalN20[*]\\ (talk) 00:21, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

So, I believe every one has exposed his arguments. Now, I ask you: Do you agree to write "some authors interpret the pact as defensive" and then to add the refernces you found? --Keysanger (talk) 19:07, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

No.--//[*]MarshalN20[*]\\ (talk) 21:04, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Do you have a proposal to resolve the question? --Keysanger (talk) 11:28, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

It's the simple response everyone has been arguing thus far. Follow what the reliable sources say: The alliance between Peru and Bolivia was purely defensive.--//[*]MarshalN20[*]\\ (talk) 02:20, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

sources supporting the other side

Donald E. Worcester and Wendell G. Schaeffer, "The Growth and Culture of Latin America", New York, Oxford University Press, 1956, 963 pages. Page 706:

In 1873, fearing the consecuences of taking action against Chile, Peru and Bolivia signed a defensive-offensive alliance

Alfred Barnaby Thomas, Profesor of History, University of Alabama,"Latin America, A History", The Macmillian Company, New York, 1956, 800 pages. Page 450:

This rivaliry [of Chile-Peru], straining the relations of the two countries, led Pardo to sign and offensive and defensive alliance with Bolivia in 1873, the latter being also disturbed by Chiles aggresiveness

Charles de Varigny, La Guerra del Pacifico page 18 here

Chile vacilaría aún más si Bolivia, firmando un tratado de alianza ofensiva y defensiva con el Perú, podía poner sobre las armas los efectivos militares y las fuerzas navales de esta nación. Un tratado de esta naturaleza fué precisamente la condición que puso Boliyia para aceptar la aventura que el Perú le proponía. Se iniciaron negociaciones y quedó firmado el Tratado, que se convino en mantener secreto, con el fin de proporcionar al Perú la ocasión de ofrecer su mediación, no revelándolo sino en caso de que Chile rechazase esta mediación y declarase la guerra.

Gonzalo Bulnes, "Chile and Peru, The causes of the War of 1879" page 57 and 58

The Treaty menaces Chile … Never was Chile in greater peril, nor has a more favourable moment been elected for reducing her to the mere leavings that interested none of the conspirators. The advantage to each of them was clear enough. Bolivia would expand three degrees on the coast; Argentina would take possession of all our eastern terrisories to whatever point she liked; Peru would make Bolivia pay her with the salitre region. The synthesis of the Secret Treaty was this: opportunity: the disarmed condition of Chile; the pretext to produce conflict: Bolivia: the profit of the business: Patagonia and the salitre.

Diego Barros Arana, parte 1, capitulo III pag. 31

Sea de ello lo que se quiera, el hecho es que el 6 de febrero de 1873 se firmaba en Lima un tratado secreto de alianza ofensiva i defensiva, por el cual ambas partes contratantes se comprometian a marchar unidas contra cualquier enemigo esterior que amenazase su independencia, su soberanía, o su integridad territorial.

Essentially, all of the sources you provide, with the exception of Bulnes (whose excerpt you provide is a biased analysys that is purely his POV), describe the alliance as "Defensive and Offensive."--//[*]MarshalN20[*]\\ (talk) 02:32, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

However, I challenge two of the sources you provide as unreliable for this matter. First, Gonzalo Bulnes, for in his excerpt it can be seen that he is being completely biased and providing his own POV on the matter. Second, Charles de Varigny, speaks of "Peru proposing Bolivia an adventure," which is quite an exceptional claim, and then goes on to mention that the treaty was made in secret in order for Peru to act as mediator of a Bolivia-Chile conflict (which is another unreferenced exceptional claim). The rest of the sources look reliable.--//[*]MarshalN20[*]\\ (talk) 02:32, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

So now that you have provided sources for your statement, with the exception of the two I have mentioned above, I think that now the discussion is taking a more serious turn where discussion can actually be based on reliable sources and not opinion from both sides of the argument.--//[*]MarshalN20[*]\\ (talk) 02:32, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you: is purely his POV, but I extend it for all the interpretations of the treaty.

I wonder every time about your views. You don't hesitate to show the Yellow journalism of "La Razon" of Callao or the list of documents kept in the closet of the Foreign Affairs in Santiago as "reliable" sources or saying that 96 bytes for a citation are too much text for the article and simultaneously try to undermine Gonzalo Bulnes's authority.

Gonzalo Bulnes' work is considered "The classic narrative of the War of the Pacific" by the "The Cambridge history of Latin America" of Leslie Bethell, and that is a academic book and her statement is done within a academic context, within a comparison of the study sources.

If you are looking for the definitive, absolute answer to the question about the aggressivenes of the treaty, you have already found it: There are not such answer. Gonzalo Bulnes and Mariano Paz Soldan and Jorge Besadre interpret it in own vein. That is it. We don't have to reinvent the reality to fit our ideology. We have to reproduce a neutral spectrum of the today knowledge.

You don't have to believe me, you can read the Falklands war, Cenepa war, Palestina or any conflict where two views of a fact are struggling. We shouldn't try to find the definitive truth in Wikipedia. We should let that for the history.

Now, considering _all_ the interpretations of the treaty and taking the discussion seriously and trying to reach a consensus on the issue, I think you will agree with me about following facts:

1. the pact was called officially defensive
2. the pact was interpreted as defensive but also as offenssive
3. the pact was one of the reasons of war adduced by Chile
4. the pact encouraged Daza to provoke Chile
5. the abrogation of the pact was one of the Chilean conditions during the Lackawamma conference
6. the pact was secret
7. the secret clause is considered in all views as negative (I mean Besadre and Mariano Paz Soldan, the Chileans anyway)
8. it is controversial when Chile knew from the pact
9. Argentina was the other country scheduled to enter the pact and wanted to to so initially but she didn't

Your english is better than mine. Can you write a draft?

--Keysanger (talk) 11:32, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

"I wonder every time about your views. You don't hesitate to show the Yellow journalism of "La Razon" of Callao or the list of documents kept in the closet of the Foreign Affairs in Santiago as "reliable" sources or saying that 96 bytes for a citation are too much text for the article and simultaneously try to undermine Gonzalo Bulnes's authority."

1)I already mentioned in a previous post that "La Razon" should be used with a certain degree of care, just as with Gonzalo Bulnes. In the case where "La Razon" is used, a Bolivian historian is giving his opinion on the matter. 2)I don't think you've ever been to the Foreign Affairs office in Santiago to determine it is a "closet document." And you're not a Chilean congressmen to determine the document as unofficial. A document from the government of Chile is what it is, and what it says is highly important. 3)I've worked closely on a couple of GA Reviews for articles, participated in one FA discussion, and from those two prior actions I can tell with all certainty that the current citation methods of the article are terrible. 4)Bulnes doesn't provide sources for his works. Moreover, his works are a mixture of facts and bias (which even you admit). The major complaint I have with using Bulnes is that his bias is not used as a form of reliable sourcing, which is what you just did in the discussion where you present quotes from different books.--//[*]MarshalN20[*]\\ (talk) 14:51, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Encyclopedias should only include the truth on subjects, not falsities or "Half-truths." We're not creating truth in Wikipedia, we're simply recording it. The problem with "war" articles is that they will always have opposing view points, and usually they can't reach consensus. Hopefully this will not be the case with this article.--//[*]MarshalN20[*]\\ (talk) 14:51, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

This is what has been agreed thus far:

1. the pact was officially defensive  Done
2. the pact was interpreted as defensive but also as offenssive
3. the pact was one of the reasons of war adduced by Chile  Done
4. the pact encouraged Daza to provoke Chile  Done
5. the abrogation of the pact was one of the Chilean conditions during the Lackawamma conference
6. the pact was secret  Done
7. the secret clause is considered in all views as negative (I mean Besadre and Mariano Paz Soldan, the Chileans anyway)
8. it is controversial when Chile knew from the pact
9. Argentina was the other country scheduled to enter the pact and wanted to to so initially but she didn't--//[*]MarshalN20[*]\\ (talk) 14:51, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

The second point is still in discussion as to how it will turn out. Chile saw the pact as offensive, even after Peru stated it was not offensive to Chile. However, what Chile thought and what the alliance actually was is a complete different reality. Secret clauses are, by nature, always seen as negative. There is no need for such a mention in the article (It goes beside the point); same thing with "controversial" (Secret treaties are, by nature, controversial).--//[*]MarshalN20[*]\\ (talk) 14:51, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

2 Questions still remain

1. Can anybody explain how an alliance can be both offensive and defensive? I don't quite understand how that makes sense. If no explanation can be given, I'll be forced to continue the argument that the alliance was purely defensive.--//[*]MarshalN20[*]\\ (talk) 02:41, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

From what I know, an Offensive alliance is (in all essence) a regular alliance (defensive/aggresive; active at all times). The main difference between both kinds of alliances is that in a defensive alliance, the alliance can only take effect if one of the allies is being attacked (not the attacker). On the other hand, an offensive alliance is (in all essence) a regular alliance where the allies are part of war at all times. This is how I understand the matter, and this is why it seems illogical for me that an alliance can be both "Offensive and Defensive."--//[*]MarshalN20[*]\\ (talk) 02:41, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

2. How can it be certified (With reliable sources) that the "Offensive and Defensive" alliance was aimed at Chile? Like it was mentioned earlier, both Peru and Bolivia had to watch out against a series of enemies (Possible invasion from Europeans, Brazil, Ecuador, Colombia, and even Argentina).--//[*]MarshalN20[*]\\ (talk) 02:41, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Think of a knife. Is it defensive or offenessive?

Think XX wants to rob ZZ. XX hites him from behind with a stone and tries to kill him but the man ZZ strips (pull) a kneife and kills XX first. The knife was a defensive weapon.

Now think XX wants to rob ZZ. This time XX have a knife and XX stab him from behind. ZZ die. The knife was a offenssive weapon.

That is for a knive but not for a traty?. Now try to follow me:

The countries X and Y have common interests, both have problems with country Z. But Y is too weak to impose her interests against Z. She (Y alone) will never win a war against Z. X and Y make a treaty they call defensive to defend self again Z. But now, through the treaty, can Y impose her interests again Z, because X and Y together are stronger than Z and Y takes the chance and break the boundary treaties with Z. The defensive Pact become a offensive Pact. And that without or with the intention of Y. X behavior makes the treaty offenssive.

About Brasil. International relations are guided also by common sense. Put your right hand on your heart and answer me: whom aimed the treaty?. To negate that is like to say that Chile was not interested in the money of the salitre.

Gonzalo Bulnes reproduces a document from Peru for Argentina that accept to put the name of Chile in the Pact avoiding to slander Brasil. That was an Argentine requirement to enter the pact. But you don't believe Bulnes. So I don't tell where it is.

--Keysanger (talk) 12:21, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

The best example you make is that of the knife. "Think XX wants to rob ZZ. XX hites him from behind with a stone and tries to kill him but the man ZZ strips (pull) a kneife and kills XX first. The knife was a defensive weapon." This is what happened during the War of the Pacific. Which nation officially declared war first? The "official" War of the Pacific begins when Chile declares war upon both Peru and Bolivia, and at that point Peru makes the casus foederis of the alliance. XX stands to me as Chile, while ZZ stands as Bolivia. The "knife" is the defensive alliance it had with Peru. However, the result of this case is that "XX" still wins.--//[*]MarshalN20[*]\\ (talk) 14:07, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Once again, that opens up my point as to how can a defensive alliance be an offensive alliance? It doesn't make sense (It can only be one or the other, but not both).--//[*]MarshalN20[*]\\ (talk) 14:07, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

"But you don't believe Bulnes. So I don't tell where it is." You do know that this particular statement sounds very childish?--//[*]MarshalN20[*]\\ (talk) 14:10, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

You can replace X with Bolivia, Y with Peru and Z with Chile. But you can also replace X=Georgia, Y=NATO and Z=Russia. It is a similar case, but the NATO is not ready to send his boys to die for Georgia's interests. The NATO will Georgia as member, but not the 2008 South Ossetia war with Russia. So the NATO helps Georgia, supports them but doesn't accept it as member as long as Georgia doesn't fix the boundary with Russia. If the NATO has accepted Georgia as member then Georgia would have used the NATO against Russia. Georgia would have converted the Pact into a aggresive Pact.

That is the reason why Georgia is not member of the nato. The Nato doesn't want to be envolved in a war FOR Georgia.

--Keysanger (talk) 13:03, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

How can Georgia "convert" a pact into aggressive? If the imaginary defensive pact it would make with NATO is only useful for defensive purposes (ex. if Russia invades Georgia again), how can Georgia turn it into aggressive (Ex. Georgia invades Russia)? Take this Wikiquote from the casus foederis article: "Thus, in World War I, the treaties between Italy and Austria-Hungary, and Romania, which purported to require Italy and Romania to come to Austria’s aid if Austria was attacked by another nation, were not honored by either Italy or Romania because, as Winston Churchill wrote, “the casus fœderis had not arisen” because the attacks on Austria had not been “unprovoked.”[1]"--//[*]MarshalN20[*]\\ (talk) 14:07, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

I think the idea that the Peru-Bolivia alliance was "offensive" would have been an obvious fact if Peru had joined military forces with Bolivia when Hilarion Daza requested Peru's assistance in the matter. However, this is not what happened. Peru, instead of doing what Daza insisted, decided to go for a more defensive approach of the matter. It sent its best diplomat in order to negotiate a peaceful conclusion to the problem. Moreover, it even presented the complete "secret defensive alliance treaty" to Chile, and proposed consideration for both the Chilean and Bolivian issue at the Peruvian congress. Peru only entered the war after Chile declared war upon it and Bolivia. Answer me this, are these the steps an "offensive alliance" would have taken?--//[*]MarshalN20[*]\\ (talk) 14:07, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Once signed the treaty, the weaker Country can provoke the stronger country. The robber doesn't need to use the knife, he only needs to show it and say: "give me the money or I stab you here". (I would give him my money).

Bolivia believed Chile would duck down with the threat of Peru. You will say: But Chile didn't know nothing about the pact!. No problem, if she resists to abandon her rights during the negotiations and mediation we told her about the pact and that will be enough. Read the letter from Daza to the Prefect of Antofagasta. The negotiation mask were only a swindle (a fake). In spanish I would say: "Bolivia empujo al Peru a la guerra". Of a defensive pact Bolivia made a offensive pact.

Other case: Falklands war and the TIAR. Argentina, the weaker country, invades the islands and later, as the british, the strong country, were comming, requested help from TIAR. If the TIAR has said yes we help you, then the TIAR, a defensive organization, would be involved in a Invasion, Argentina has have converted the defensive pact in an aggressive one. And that same is valid about the "mediation" of the USA between Argentina and UK. It was a swindle. The USA were always on the UK side and the USA was ready to demostrate it. (But the UK didn't provoke the war)

Consider that now we know that: Chile was not weaker than Peru and Bolivia together, probably Chile knew about the pact, Chile didn't duck down and Peru made a mistake as declared the casus federalis. But Daza didn't know that, and Peru didn't see the consecuences.

The same for the second example: Argentina believed that England would duck down, believed that the USA would be neutral etc, etc. And Argentina didn't duck down during the negotiations but the USA and UK together are stronger than Argentina. There are some similitude between Daza and Galtieri.

--Keysanger (talk) 15:02, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

I understand what you're saying. The knife explanation does not seem to be helping the matter as it is making it more complicated (so let's put an end to that). What you mention, which if I recall correctly comes from Gonzalo Bulnes's work, Bolivia attempted to use the defensive alliance it had with Peru as an offensive alliance by attempting to threaten Chile with it. Next, you explain that the negotiations were only fake. Finally, you tell that Bolivia pushed Peru into the war (which, if I may add, later dumped Peru and left it to its own luck). Yet, as I read the passage/letter again, by taking out Bulnes's POV from the matter it, it is Hilarion Daza who is making the statements in a personal letter to the prefect of Antofagasta. Daza is the only one discussing the possible usage of the defensive treaty with Peru as a "threat" for Chile.--//[*]MarshalN20[*]\\ (talk) 13:50, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

In reality, with the events that actually took place (not the "possible" events), the government of Bolivia did not use the defensive treaty as offensive. The government first requested Peruvian assistance when Chile invaded Antofagasta (which the Bolivian government, encouraged by Daza, saw as a reason for the defensive treaty to come into effect). Peru, who obviously knew its military was not ready for a war (you mention Peru didn't know about Chile's strength, but Peru did know about its own military weakness), did not call casus foederis of the alliance as no war had been declared from either side. Not only that, but after Chile sent Peru a request for neutrality in the conflict (as, according to Bulnes, Chile already knew about the secret defensive alliance), Peru was honest and told the Chilean ambassador that it had a secret defensive alliance with Bolivia. If that were not enough, Peru proposed Chile that it would present the matter in the Peruvian congress (who had people such as Miguel Grau, a retired and respected naval officer who had fought alongside Chile in the Chincha Islands War and was well aware of Peru's military weakness). The defensive alliance only came into effect after Chile declared war upon Peru and Bolivia.--//[*]MarshalN20[*]\\ (talk) 13:50, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

In your statement you compare Peru with the US, in terms of them making "swindle negotiations." However, during the negotiations between Peru and Chile, Peru's request on the matter was that Chile returned Antofagasta to Bolivia. According to Gonzalo Bulnes, Bolivia wanted to extend its borders past Antofagasta; so the Peruvian proposal with Chile would not have been viewed as favorable by Hilarion Daza. Peru was proposing for the return to the status quo, but neither Chile or Bolivia were interested in that. How exactly does that make Peru a "swindler" in negotiations?--//[*]MarshalN20[*]\\ (talk) 13:50, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Finally, you tell how Bolivia expected for Chile to "duck down." However, is this what Peru thought too? The evidence you present, which is mainly Gonzalo Bulnes, only refers to Bolivia acting as the "abuser" who wants to make a defensive treaty into an offensive treaty. However, Peru is barely even mentioned as having done much of anything beyond that of dealing honestly with Chile and attempting to mediate a conflict peacefully.--//[*]MarshalN20[*]\\ (talk) 13:50, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

On a last note, the USA never provided assistance to the British during the Falklands War. The only American country that provided assistance to Britain was Chile; Margaret Thatcher even claimed that without Chile, Britain would not have had a chance at defeating Argentina.--//[*]MarshalN20[*]\\ (talk) 13:50, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Arriving at Conclusion

Keysanger has provided a good response (after finally providing reliable sources for the claim that the Peru-Bolivia alliance was offensive, but also defensive) to the argument. So this is what seems to be a good consensus (Please comment if you don't agree):

1. First, the Peru-Bolivia alliance was officially (on paper) defensive.
2. Second, the Peru-Bolivia alliance was secret.
3. Third, Chile viewed the alliance as offensive to it; but it should be noted that it was an incorrect view (as both Peru and the articles in the defensive treaty told Chile that it was not offensive to anyone) that was fueled by the letter of Hilarion Daza and the political views of the late Diego Portales.
4. Fourth, Hilarion Daza (not Bolivia, and not Peru) attempted to use the defensive alliance as an offensive alliance against Chile.[This is referenced by Gonzalo Bulnes]
5. Fifth, despite the actions Hilarion Daza took to turn the defensive alliance into an offensive alliance, the defensive alliance between Peru and Bolivia only came into official effect after Chile declared war on both Peru and Bolivia. Thus, the alliance was, in reality, only used defensively.

What do the rest of you think? I think we're getting close to a consensus that will help resolve the problem without the need of arbitration, so if you think anything of the above must be further discussed (or things need to be added), please mention it below.--//[*]MarshalN20[*]\\ (talk) 13:50, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't agree with your views. There are a lot of problems with Wikipedia pillars.

• "officially" is not enough, "officially titled" is right.
• Your but it should be noted that it was an incorrect view is not our duty to give marks, (correct or incorrect), that should be decided by the reader. See Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. Do we want to judge the facts of the history?. What about Peru's decision to enter the war? correct or incorrect?, What about Grau's decision to sail to Angamos? correct or incorrect?, What about Rebolledo's decision not to attack Callao at the beginning of the war? good? wrong?. Should we give marks? ...
• ..., Thus, the alliance was, in reality, only used defensively: To arrive at conclusions, good or wrong, is not the duty of wikipedians. In Wikipedia that is called Wikipedia:Original research. We write the facts: titled defensive, interpreted defensive by X and interpreted offensive by Z. No biased comments.

1. the Peru-Bolivia alliance was officially titled defensive.
2. the Peru-Bolivia alliance was secret.
3. Chile viewed the alliance as offensive to it and war one of the reasons to enter in war. (Do not add adjetives to the Chilean view.)
4. Bolivia broke the 1874 Boundary Treaty and requested from Peru the Alliance Treaty against Chile
5. the actions Hilarion Daza took to turn the defensive alliance into an offensive alliance were successful, Peru didn't stay neutral, albeit she could do it.
6. The pact was for Chile one of the reasons to enter the war
7. the abrogation of the pact was one of the Chilean conditions during the Lackawamma conference

We should follow A. Einstein advice: Everything should be made as simple as possible, but no simpler. Don't add your "notes", "biased Authors", "conclusions", "that was fueled", etc. One could think that you to take the reader for a fool.

--Keysanger (talk) 20:53, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

One can think whatever he may want to think. Nobody is trying to manipulate what anybody is thinking. Logic, that is properly sourced logic, is by no means against the Wikicode.--//[*]MarshalN20[*]\\ (talk) 02:31, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

For instance, what do you mean by: ""officially" is not enough, "officially titled" is right". A document as plain as the Peru-Bolivia Defensive Treaty of 1873 speaks for itself. A document is not simply "titled" something, it contains information that defines it as something. All reliable sources agree that the document defining the alliance between Peru and Bolivia, was a defensive alliance treaty. Example: The original "Operation Valkyrie" was officially titled "Operation Valkyrie." So? What does that tell you? Nothing. However, the correct thing to say would be "the original Operation Valkyrie was officially designed to deal with internal disturbances in emergency situations." Presenting the information how it is has no connection to WP:OR.--//[*]MarshalN20[*]\\ (talk) 02:31, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

I still don't understand why you're opposed at the treaty being described as defensive. I've tried to think about it, taking into consideration that I may be wrong, but from all angles it is simply correct. The treaty was titled defensive, was put into effect during the war in a defensive manner, and reliable sources present the treaty as defensive. What's not defensive about the treaty?--//[*]MarshalN20[*]\\ (talk) 02:31, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Also, the wording "Chile viewed the alliance as a menace" is more correct. Now how about this for a consensus (I'll check the ones that you repeated, or that I repeat, which I take to be agreed).

1. the Peru-Bolivia alliance was officially defensive. {Currently Discussing}
2. The Peru-Bolivia alliance was secret.Y
3. Chile viewed the alliance as a menace to it and was one of the reasons to enter in war.Y
4. Bolivia broke the 1874 Boundary Treaty and requested from Peru the Alliance Treaty against Chile. {Disputed}
5. The actions Hilarion Daza took to turn the defensive alliance into an offensive alliance were successful, Peru didn't stay neutral, albeit she could do it. {completely unreferenced claim; Peru didn't enter the war as the offender, but rather entered it as the defender under the casus foederis of the defensive treaty. Additionally, Chile didn't allow Peru the official consideration of the neutrality proposal. All of the things mentioned in this exerpt have been sourced in the article}.
6. The abrogation of the pact was one of the Chilean conditions during the Lackawamma conference. {Please explain what abrogation means to you}
7. Hilarion Daza (not Bolivia, and not Peru) attempted to use the defensive alliance as an offensive alliance against Chile.
8. Despite the actions Hilarion Daza took to turn the defensive alliance into an offensive alliance, the defensive alliance between Peru and Bolivia only came into official effect after Chile declared war on both Peru and Bolivia. Thus, the alliance was only used defensively.

Two things thus far have been agreed. I'm sure the rest will soon be solved.--//[*]MarshalN20[*]\\ (talk) 02:31, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

I added the cite of G.Bulnes. Regarding the name I agree officially titled. It is used in Wikipedia in Hitler-Stalin Pact and Venezuela in order to disassociate with the aim of the namegiving. (Almost nobody beleves that the name "non-aggression pact" is right and many Venezolanos don't like the change to "Republica bolivariana")

Abrogations means for me that http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/abrogation

--Keysanger (talk) 13:31, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

If that is the way you define abrogation, then I also agree with it. Also, why do you compare the Peru-Bolivia Defensive Alliance to be like the Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact? The Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact was broken by Hitler when he attacked the Soviet Union. The Peru-Bolivia Defensive Alliance was never broken and came into effect after Chile declared war on Bolivia and Peru. Hilarion Daza might have attempted to make the alliance aggressive, but the casus foederis only arose after Chile officially declared war. You're still not explaining why it is not a defensive alliance. Please explain why (and please no more analogies like that of the "knife").--//[*]MarshalN20[*]\\ (talk) 14:39, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm updating the list of consensus. I took out the unreferenced section that claimed that Hilarion Daza turned the alliance into an offensive alliance. Consensus was reached for te Lackawmma Conference.

1. the Peru-Bolivia alliance was officially defensive. {Currently Discussing}
2. The Peru-Bolivia alliance was secret.Y
3. Chile viewed the alliance as a menace to it and was one of the reasons to enter in war.Y
4. Bolivia broke the 1874 Boundary Treaty. {Disputed by Arafael}
5. The abrogation of the pact was one of the Chilean conditions during the Lackawamma Conference.Y
6. Hilarion Daza (not Bolivia, and not Peru) attempted to use the defensive alliance as a threat to Chile. {Referenced by Gonzalo Bulnes}
7. Despite the actions Hilarion Daza took to turn the defensive alliance into an offensive alliance, the defensive alliance between Peru and Bolivia only came into official effect after Chile declared war on both Peru and Bolivia. Thus, the alliance was only used defensively.

Three things thus far have been agreed.--//[*]MarshalN20[*]\\ (talk) 14:39, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Ineligible for Third Opinion

Hi, I reviewed this discussion and it is not eligible for a third opinion, since more than two editors are involved in the dispute. For disputes that are more complicated than requiring a single editor to provide opinions to two others, I recommend WP:MEDCAB. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 06:17, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Defensive Alliance: Peru and Bolivia

These are the sources I have found further verifying the defensive alliance (They're in English, for your convenience):

• History of the Latin-American nations By William Spence Robertson: [2]
• New York Times: "The defensive treaty of 1873 between Peru and Bolivia" (First column).[3]
• A history of Peru By Clements Robert Markham: "The Chileans used this purely defensive treaty, by which arbitration is provided for before there can be a casus foederis, as a pretext for war."[4]
• CHILE, PERU AND THE TREATY OF 1929: THE FINAL SETTLEMENT by Ronald Bruce St John: "Peru was honour bound under the terms of an 1873 treaty of defensive alliance to join the conflict on the side of Bolivia."[5]--//[*]MarshalN20[*]\\ (talk) 21:24, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

The following are provided by User:Arafael:

• Read in [6] Republic of Chile. Foreign Ministry. Archive 1884: "Copia Tratado de Alianza Defensiva Perú-Bolivia (1873)"
• Read in [7] Chilean newspaper : "Perú (quien intervino producto de un tratado defensivo..."--//[*]MarshalN20[*]\\ (talk) 21:24, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Super!!!, now find some for the other side to be neutral. --Keysanger (talk) 21:43, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

lol. That is your job Keysanger. You're the one chasing the idea that the alliance was offensive against Chile. All of the reliable sources I have provided, and the ones provided by Arafael from Chilean sources, all agree that the alliance was defensive.--//[*]MarshalN20[*]\\ (talk) 21:57, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Don't You want to have a WP:NPOV? --Keysanger (talk) 19:13, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

At this point I think it’s necessary that an administrator intervenes. Keysanger is clearly missing the point about references, which in turn, is stalling this whole discussion with redundant arguments.

Keysanger, it is crucial that you understand this;

If you believe, know or theorize that the treaty was X, Y, or Z, then, you need to provide the corresponding sources that corroborates it.

Marshall and Arafael are of the idea that the treaty was defensive, and they have provided reliable sources to back that up. Why can’t you do the same?

Likeminas (talk) 19:30, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

As Likeminas points out, you're at a loss here Keysanger. Reliable sources have been provided that prove that the Peru-Bolivia alliance was defensive. You have failed to provide reliable sources (Note the plural, which means more than one) that prove your stance. However, as Likeminas points out, time has come for more serious action to be taken. I have began dispute resolution nominations and an RfC for the discussion. Nonetheless, there is still time for you to change your PoV and prevent from this to further scale; it's up to you to decide Keysanger.--//[*]MarshalN20[*]\\ (talk) 21:12, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Can we agree on that the treaty was (at least partly) pointed toward Chile? The only common threats to Peru and Bolivia at that time were

1) Brazilian expansion in the Amazon, which occured later with the the specific example of the annexation of Acre

2) Seafaring nations such as Britain, USA and Spain that had interest in the coastal regions. A specific example od this was the Chincha Islands War. However if this would had been the main goal of the treaty Chile would have been invited.

3) Chilean influence.

The Chilean claims of that this alliance was pointed toward them are totally understandable, since Chile had since the times of Diego Portales and the War of the Confederation seen with alarm any approachment between Peru and Bolivia. Since Diego Portales views were maintream in the political class of Chile it was obvious that they saw this alliance as an eminent treat to Chile (if not a real an imaginary one).Dentren | ^Talk 17:38, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Can we agree on that anything that is to be included into the article must be coming from a reliable source?

Likeminas (talk) 18:07, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree completely with Likeminas. He's the one making the most logic out of this whole nonsense-filled discussion.--//[*]MarshalN20[*]\\ (talk) 20:08, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

In response to Dentren: A defensive alliance, by its nature, is pointed towards the defense of the countries involved in the alliance. In other words, the treaty was not pointed against any specific country. Nowhere in the document of the treaty is there a mention to a specific nation. The reliable sources provided from neutral third-parties all agree that the treaty and the alliance were of defensive natures. Dentren, your list of historical situations at that time is factual, but incomplete. First let me comment on the three examples:

1. True. The Brazilian expansion in the Amazon was a threat to Peru and Bolivia. However, Brazil was also facing border problems with Colombia, as this wikipicture shows: . In your second claim you point out that the non-inclusion of Chile in the treaty means that Peru and Bolivia were not planning on making a defense against European invaders, which would mean that they were plotting against Chile. Yet, Colombia was not part of the alliance either. By following the logic you present, then that means Bolivia and Peru were also not defending against Brazil. If you further add the conclusion I made from that logic, then Bolivia and Peru were plotting against Colombia. The conclusions I have made are incorrrect, however. As such, if you concur with my explanation, the conclusion you make that the defensive alliance was not meant for European coastal invaders is also incorrect.

2. I've explained why your idea that this was not a "main goal" is incorrect in the first part. Technically speaking, neither the "European invasion of the coasts" or the "Brazilian expansion of the Amazon" were main goals of the treaty, but they were goals as the defensive alliance calls it for them to be preocupations that required protection.

3. Chilean influence was a problem, but that was mainly and almost exclusively for Bolivia. Peru was doing financially good, but did not spend enough of that wealth into military measures (an error which the War of the Pacific would prove to be a terrible mistake). Peru held enough power in the Pacific coast as did Chile, in terms of commerce. The main fear of Peru was that of Chile wanting to expand further north (which eventually happened during the War of the Pacific), and to a lesser extent an economic rivalry between Callao and Valparaiso (which was not "big" enough in order to serve as the cause for a war). Bolivia was the one that dragged Peru into the war (And then left them alone early in the war); Peru was honor-bound by the defensive alliance to do so. Moreover, Peru was even going to re-consider the defensive alliance in the Peruvian congress (as the article explains) as a measure to avoid war with Chile, but Chile declared war on Bolivia and Peru before the Peruvian congress could even begin talks on the problem. Would a country that was part of an offensive alliance against a particular nation want to mediate a conflict peacefully (Especially if the alliance was made against that particular nation)? The actions taken by Peru during the start of the war demonstrate that the pure essence of the alliance was defensive; with the exception of the Argentine proposal, which Peruvians claim that Argentina suggested (not the other way around, as Argentineans claim).

--//[*]MarshalN20[*]\\ (talk) 20:08, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Now that I've commented on your 3 points, here are some other issues going on at that time that concerned the defensive alliance:

4. Peru was having ongoing conflicts with Ecuador over their borders. They even had a war about 20 years before the War of the Pacific: Ecuadorian–Peruvian war of 1858 (to 1860). The war, which was won by Peru, did not resolve much of anything. Peru was still at odds with Ecuador, and the defensive alliance Peru made in 1873 also reflects the Peruvian need for protection against a possible second war with Ecuador (which eventually did happen, and a third war followed). However, just as Chile was mainly a Bolivia worry, Ecuador was mainly a Peruvian worry. Does this mean that the defensive alliance was meant against Ecuador?

5. Peru was also having border conflicts with Colombia. Though not as heavy as with Ecuador, the problem was still present. Was the defensive alliance meant against Colombia?

6. The Peru-Bolivia defensive alliance was, partly, a consequence to the prior Peru-Bolivian Confederation that was dissolved by Chile during the War of the Confederation. The Peru-Bolivian Confederation was not aimed against Chile (IMO, the Confederation was against Ecuador and Colombia), but people like Diego Portales (the merchant and political figure of Chile that you mention) made it seem like an alliance between Peru and Bolivia would always be a threat for Chile. This xenophobia of Portales has indeed been sponged by Chilean politics, and especially given shine during the rule of Pinochet. As much of a popular view that Portales's view might have had during the War of the Pacific (and even still today), the idea that Peru and Bolivia's defensive alliance in 1873 was aimed as an offensive alliance against Chile still makes no sense as a fact.

--//[*]MarshalN20[*]\\ (talk) 20:08, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

However, the basic idea that Likeminas, and up to a certain point me, have been arguing is that there are no reliable third-party sources (plural) that analyze the alliance was offensive against any nation in particular. All reliable third-party sources, including one highly neutral source from the New York Times (Which interviews a Chilean and a Peruvian politician), presents the alliance as purely defensive. If that were not enough, User:Arafael brought in Chilean sources claiming the alliance to have been defensive. Based on these things, I have to repeat (for a fourth time, I believe) that the Chilean idea that the Peru-Bolivia defensive alliance was offensive against Chile is erroneous; it was a mistake (which might have been involuntary, but might have also been done on purpose) from the Chilean government at that time, which apparently to this day many Chileans are incorrectly taught at school or at home. Just as Wikipedia is not a place for simple "facts" to be placed without reliable sources, it is quite especially not a place were "errors" must thrive.--//[*]MarshalN20[*]\\ (talk) 20:08, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

List of changes made without community consent

I have noticed that Keysanger has changed a consensus we arrived a while back in the discussion (maybe a month or so). This change is in regards to the Bolivian decree made by the president of Bolivia, which was agreed after an effective discussion (where reliable sources were presented, ideas were argued with passionate but logical debates based on sources and not opinions) that it was not an official declaration of war. In other words, Bolivia did not declare war with the declaration. Also, during that discussion it was equally agreed that the Chilean invasion of Antofagasta was not a declaration of war from Chile. However, Keysanger has changed the text providing a series of sources that claim the treaty as a declaration of war. I believe that this should be reverted back to what had been agreed by consensus; but if a new discussion wants to be opened that should also have a chance at this point.--//[*]MarshalN20[*]\\ (talk) 20:08, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

The Bolivian declaration of war, is a little trickier since there are reliable sources that corroborate it. Nonetheless, we have extensively discussed that issue here, and at this point I considered it settled.

I would revert Keysanger edits and suggest him to go and look into that debate, and afterwards, (if he thinks it is necessary) to come back to this discussion and explain why the previous consensus should be changed.

As for all the interpretations you guys are giving, I can only say: Save it.

It's just a waste of time if no sources are presented.

Likeminas (talk) 20:33, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree Likeminas. The problem is that I can foretell that once I revert the information on that particular section to what consensus agreed it to be, Keysanger will more than likely revert it back to the information he provided (leading to an edit conflict). In order to be more specific, this is the final discussion made on that particular statement: Talk:War_of_the_Pacific/Archive_1#Findings_so_far. It reached the consensus of Dentren, Likeminas, Arafael, and myself (All of the participants of the discussion). Afterwards I left this whole War of the Pacific as there was apparently no more need for my opinion (Things were being done by consensus, and reaching solutions without edit wars, and using reliable sources). I'm surprised to find myself back here two months after that, but I can't complain (I accepted to return). Without further chit-chat from my part, here is the statement that was developed:

" 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."

These are the sources provided by Arafael that were used to source the sentence; as can be seen, the sources are varied, but the idea remains central:

Guillermo Lagos Carmona, chilean historian, lawyer and ambassador, in his book: "History of the borders of Chile" [8] page 65, Section 4: "The declaration of war of bolivia" considers the Bolivian decree from president Daza (March 1st) , against Chilean interests in Bolivia, as a declaration of war.

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

Ramiro Prudencio Lizón, bolivian historian and diplomat, in "La Razon", bolivian newspaper, digital edition, Feb 20th 2008:[9] The occupation of Antofagasta: "So that Chile could move further north, there was a need for a formal declaration of war. And it wasn't that country but rather Bolivia that sent an internal decree that afterwards would be interpreted as a real declaration of war. This was published on March 1st 1879.. Also in [10] "Correo del Sur", bolivian newspaper, Feb 14th 2004.

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

Atilio Sivirichi Tapia, peruvian historian and professor, in his book, "History of Peru", page 193, [11][12]: "Bolivia limited itself to declaring the 1st of March, with relations with Chile cut, a statement declaring the expulsion of Chileans. This deed, was interpreted by the Chilean government, as declaration of war as a cause for the occupation of the whole coast".

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

Tommaso Caivano, italian historian, in his book : "History of the American war between Chile, Peru and Bolivia", Page 66 (Il 17 marzo, il Gabinetto...) [13][14] : "This decree, as it clearly reads, just gives some actions on the state of war ... and, as textually detail, "during the war that Chile has promoted to Bolivia", it was interpreted by Chile, in an original way. The Government of Chile said that the decree contained a declaration of war."

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

As such, I will edit the statement back into the article as consensus had agreed. If a change is wished for this particular sentence, please discuss it here.--//[*]MarshalN20[*]\\ (talk) 21:20, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

I wish that the date of the decree and the controversial passage are mentioned in the text. Further, the references have to be separeted:

• the sources that support the Declaration of war
• the sources that support the no- Declaration of war

--Keysanger (talk) 11:26, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm sure we can come to a compromise without the need of a problem. The date of the decree has been added. Adding the passage in the article would increase its size (Check WP:SIZE) and hinder readability. Could you elaborate a little more on the matter of "the references have to be separated" (I don't quite understand your idea).--//[*]MarshalN20[*]\\ (talk) 02:25, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia can save 96 characters more without going bankrupt. If we find different interpretations of the decree, then we have to write a sentence that reproduces the Peruvian POV (with the references thereto) and a sentence with the Chilean POV (with the references thereto).

--Keysanger (talk) 12:57, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

your revert says:

After the Chilean invasion of Antofagasta, Hilarión Daza made a presidential decree on March 1, 1879, 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.

my revert was:

After the Chilean invasion of Antofagasta, on 1. March 1870 Hilarión Daza made a controversial presidential decree that "suspended the trade and comunication to the Republic of Chile during the war imposed to Bolivia"

The Chilean government understood the decree as a declaration of war but some voices in Peru and Bolivia claim that the Chileans intencionally tergiversate the significance of the decree

The decree demanded the expulsion of Chileans and the nationalizing of Chilean private property.

Your revert delivered 4 references indiscriminately. My revert assign the right reference to the right sentence. That is what I mean.

Other problem I have with your revert is that subtly support the Peruvian and Bolivian view that the war was not declared by this Bolivian decree. It says After the Chilean invasion of Antofagasta, Hilarión Daza made a presidential decree on March 1, 1879, which demanded the expulsion of Chileans and the nationalizing of Chilean private property. That is, think the reader, the decree doesn't says nothing about war. But that is not true, the decree says about war: Artículo 1: Queda cortado todo comercio y comunicación con la República de Chile mientras dure la guera que ha promovido a Bolivia. In english: as long as lasts the war (?). Was Bolivia on war?. Due to its aggressiveness is not the right reproduction of the passage. We should let the reader decides about that.

I expect your statement

--Keysanger (talk) 13:43, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

I still don't understand why you think it's correct to "separate" a sentence with "Chilean POV" and "Peruvian POV." You don't seem to understand the concept of WP:NPOV. The original sentence that was agreed by consensus includes both the harshest part of the decree (Expulsion of Chileans and taking of property) and the idea that Chile understood the decree as a declaration of war. Along with that, the original consensus sentence includes that "in reality no war had yet been formally declared from either side of the conflict," which is a true statement (with reliable references supporting it) as according to the Bolivian constitution, the only way for Bolivia to be in war would be if the Bolivian congress passed forth a law accepting the war (A presidential decree has no official effect as a declaration of war; added that Daza's statement is not even a "declaration of war." He's merely stating that Chile has ignited war by invading Antofagasta, which goes back to the point that neither country had officially declared war even though both had taken agressive actions). This is not a "support" for the Peruvian and Bolivian view; it's NPOV from actual Bolivian law.--//[*]MarshalN20[*]\\ (talk) 18:02, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Moreover, your sentence (in comparisson to the original consensus sentence) is grammatically inferior and makes a jumble out of something that is correctly presented (and with essentially the same things) in the original consensus sentence. An example of your sentence's error would be, "but some voices in Peru and Bolivia," which is a clear example of WP:WEASEL.--//[*]MarshalN20[*]\\ (talk) 18:02, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

The best point you make in your position is that of correctly placing the sources where they belong. I'll do that as it is a logical and good idea.--//[*]MarshalN20[*]\\ (talk) 18:02, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

I added the decree passage again. --Keysanger (talk) 20:32, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Tendentious Editing

Wikipedia:Tendentious editing

After some time of searching Wikipedia policies, essays, and otherwhatnot, I finally found the best suited example of the problem currently shaping this article. The edits of users such as User:Keysanger are and should be considered tendentious editing. I believe that User:Likeminas has more experience at dealing with these problems, as he has faced a series of arguments with a certain user who does not deserve mention in this discussion. Although Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy (not even sure if I spelled it right, which further explains why Wikipedia should not be that. lol), this kind of essays help to explain the common problems that take place prior or during what is called an "edit war." I accuse User:Keysanger of doing tendentious editing under the following standards mentioned in the essay:

• You find that nobody will assume good faith, no matter how often you remind them.
• You challenge the reversion of your edits, demanding that others justify it.
• You find yourself repeating the same argument over and over again, without persuading people. (Note: I realize that I have fallen victim to this particular one)
• You delete the cited additions of others with the complaint that they did not discuss their edits first.
• You have been involved on a particular page for a long time, yet all you have ever done there is delete, revert, tag, and criticize.
• You constantly warn editors for "harassment" or "incivility" which occurs within mostly constructive comments.
• You characterize every warning directed at you as "harassment".

Keysanger is not the only one who has done this, as several of us involved in the discussion have also done one or two of the mistakes mentioned in the essay (including myself). However, as of now Keysanger's edits in the article have seriously been the most blatant of tendentious editing out of everyone involved. I would like to use this section in order to discuss the tendentious editing currently going on at the War of the Pacific article. POV pushing is not constructive, heck it's not even funny (and I'm the kind of person that laughs at mostly anything). I've noticed that Keysanger uses sources in order to certify several of his additions, and yet some of those additions clearly present a heavily biased POV (supported by equally biased sources). I follow WP:GF, and assume that Keysanger probably means his edits in good faith of what he believes to be correct. Yet, all of us must understand that many of the things we could have been taught in our childhood (or even during our older days) were incorrect; especially if you learned them from a non-neutral party. If the blatant tendentious editing continues, there will be no other option than to bring in a Wikipedia administrator that will have to use his power in order to find a solution to the problem. I would like to encourage all of you who are involved in this project to discuss things fairly, prevent the pushing of biased POV, and provide reliable sources when attempting to discuss a major change.--//[*]MarshalN20[*]\\ (talk) 20:58, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

LOL --Keysanger (talk) 22:57, 9 July 2009 (UTC)