Nothing Special   »   [go: up one dir, main page]
Jump to content

Talk:War of the Pacific: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Line 586: Line 586:


::Once again, you make good points Likeminas. I understand your position on including the "According to x historian." However, my main concern still remains open. Gonzalo Bulnes might be as much of a respected or "well known" historian in Chile, but from the information that was provided as reference for Bulnes (The "War of the Pacific" PDF file) there is no '''Works Cited''' page or a full list of where he got his information from. I've read other similar historical books, such as [[King Leopold's Ghost]], and the author at the end of his book provides a full list of sources where he got his information from. In other words, how can we certify that Bulnes isn't making up the information if he hasn't provided official references to his work?--[[User:MarshalN20|//[*]MarshalN20[*]\\]] ([[User talk:MarshalN20|talk]]) 01:22, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
::Once again, you make good points Likeminas. I understand your position on including the "According to x historian." However, my main concern still remains open. Gonzalo Bulnes might be as much of a respected or "well known" historian in Chile, but from the information that was provided as reference for Bulnes (The "War of the Pacific" PDF file) there is no '''Works Cited''' page or a full list of where he got his information from. I've read other similar historical books, such as [[King Leopold's Ghost]], and the author at the end of his book provides a full list of sources where he got his information from. In other words, how can we certify that Bulnes isn't making up the information if he hasn't provided official references to his work?--[[User:MarshalN20|//[*]MarshalN20[*]\\]] ([[User talk:MarshalN20|talk]]) 01:22, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Gonzalo Bulnes delivered a lot of Primary sources like the english version of the 1873 treaty the Godoy papers, (the Chilean Plenipotentiary Minister in Lima) and many of the correspondence between the "parties involved": Lavalle, Godoy, Irigoyen etc. His interpretations of the facts are Chile-biased, yes. But we have to separate the facts from the interpretations and write facts as facts and views of the facts as views of the facts. As Likeminas stated, every writer, we also, shows a tendency to confound it. Diferent is the case when we want to reproduce the Chilean interpretation of the facts. Therefor is Gonzalo Bulnes (1851-1936) an excelent source: he was ''diputado'', Senator and Ex-Plenipotentiary Minister and ex-Extraordinary Ambassador of Chile in the Argentine Republic. He was in midstream.

--[[User:Keysanger|Keysanger]] ([[User talk:Keysanger|talk]]) 12:48, 11 July 2009 (UTC)


== Argentina's stance ==
== Argentina's stance ==

Revision as of 12:48, 11 July 2009

Template:Archive box collapsible

BOLD

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

I say the map File:Pacifico1879.svg is wrong

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

the new map in contrast is better because:

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

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

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

- Only Chile has "black color" boundary after war
- Puna de Atacama area in File:MPazSoldan.1888-2xChile.djvu is greater than File:Wotp.en.svg
- It lacks the parallels
- Ok. use the Generic Mapping Tools border database
- Ok. has many cities and rivers
- "because the showed Chile-Bolivia doesn't fit the real border after the war".
It is a personal opinion
The border was verified by many colaborators in [1]
- "because Argentina has a shorter typesize".
Then increase it.
- "because the map doesn't have any sources for the border Peru-Bolivia".
Incorrect. Please see [2] Para establecer el límite entre Perú y Bolivia es ha utilizado este mapa: Departamento_moquegua_1865.JPG —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arafael (talk • contribs) 14:33, 1 July 2009 (UTC) [reply]

It isn't a personal opinion. It is the Generic Mapping Tools border database. Many colaborators is warrant for nothing, if they don't use a good method. And they didn't use it. The today boundary in Puna de Atacama is actually very diferent as showed in the "Many colaborators" map.

The Bolivia-Argentina Boundary was modified after the war, but not directly because the war, it was complicated, Tarija, etc.. Therefore we can't use the black line, reserved for the "after war and because of war boundary". I used red. Your "Many colaborators" map also makes a diference between the Chile-Peru-Bolivia boundary (black line and no line) and the Peru-Bolivia and Bolivia-Argentina boundary (no line). Why is this method good in the collaborators-map and wrong in the GMT-map? Can you explain that?

Then increase it.: I increased the typesize of the "ARGENTINA" string and made another map. So, I did it. Accept it.

About the sources of the "Many colaborators" map File:Pacifico1879.svg:

In the description page we read:

Basado en [3]

We follow the link and find File:Borders-Bolivia-Chile-Peru-Before and after Pacfic War of 1879 SP.png and there is finally the source of the map: File:Borders_Chile_1879_and_2006.png. But there is the note:

This map is erroneus, use Image:Borders-Bolivia-Chile-Peru-Before and after Pacfic War of 1879 SP.png

So, someone shares partially my opinion about the map. But there are three other links:

  1. http://grflib.svnt.com/banners/personales2.gif
  2. File:Guerra-del-pacifico-01-a.svg
  3. File:Departamento_moquegua_1865.JPG

The first link leads to a private website, there is no map.

The second link leads to Guerra-del-pacifico-01-a.svg. I took the colors from this map, but the map shows only the boundary before the war, and the Puna the Atacama zone is, I think, to big southwards.

The third map is the same I used to define the Peru-Bolivia Boundary before the war.

So, allegedly both maps should be the same. They are not, because the File:Pacifico1879.svg doesn't show the Rio Loa (and many others), also it doesn't show a scale.

All things considered, I repeat:

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

the new map in contrast is better because:

I think, this issue is finished. If anyone wants, we can call a Mediation about. --Keysanger (talk) 23:09, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The improvements of the map are much better now. The color of Chile is now more visible, and the parallels have been noted. However, if some opposition is still going on about the map, please do post your comments and state your opinion why the map could still be wrong. In the meantime, thanks should go to Keysanger's contribution in this case.--//[*]MarshalN20[*]\\ (talk) 14:10, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

SECRET

We agree that there were at least 3 Parties: Chile, Bolivia and Peru. For these three parties apply that the Treaty was secret. So, the treaty was secret. there is no doubt about that.

What about defensive?

May be that the pact was defensiv for Bolivia and Peru. But, was defensive for Chile? No, in no way. For Chile the pact was no defensive.

Every wiki editor can write "the pact was secret" because it was.

Please explain me WHY the pact was defensive for Chile, before you delete my text.

--Keysanger (talk) 22:22, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to be a little agitated, so please read this message as a peaceful statement. Surely, it is important to mention that Chile (now pay attention to this) misunderstood the "secret treaty" (You're right in saying that secret is standard) as aggresive. The word misunderstood is a key word whenever it is associated with "aggresive" as it is incorrect to mention the defensive treaty as agressive. For, the treaty was developed between Peru and Bolivia; therefore, if Peru and Bolivia viewed it as defensive, the treaty is therefore upon the eyes of the international community as legally defensive. Any other interpretation of this treaty as non-defensive is a misunderstanding, and should always be noted as such for correctness.--[|!*//MarshalN20\\*!|] (talk) 03:00, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Let's leave our interpretations aside for a moment.

If the treaty was purely defensive from the viewpoint of Peru and Bolivia then references need to be provided stating just that. On the other hand, if the treaty was seen as secretive and/or offensive by Chile, then, the same rule applies. If we end up with both claims being verifiable by reliable sources (which I think we will) then, we should present both of them.

Likeminas (talk) 13:54, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Where in the treaty said: "is offensive" to someone?
It was a defensive treaty with an aditional article that kept it secret.
Arafael (talk) 14:44, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Let me once again re-state (and re-word) what I pointed out on my past statement. There is no way that something can be two opposites at the same time. A treaty cannot be defensive and offensive at the same time. It's an illogical statement, just like saying that something can be sweet and sour at the same time (Sweet and sour chicken, which is good, can also be only one thing at a time).
As Arafael has noted, since the treaty makes no mention of an offensive action towards any particular country, nor does it make it an aggressive statement towards a normal alliance (non-defensive); and clearly only speaks about a defensive pact: The treaty is a defensive alliance. What's more, Peru's actions during the start of the war makes it even more obvious that the treaty was defensive: Peru set the defensive alliance active only when Chile declared war upon it and Bolivia (Chile was the first country to formally declare war).
As such, since the treaty is legally a "Secret defensive alliance," any other mention of it as anything different is incorrect. Therefore, if you want to include that Chile saw the treaty as offensive, it should be noted that it was a misunderstanding from Chile.--[|!*//MarshalN20\\*!|] (talk) 15:19, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Take note, though, that I agree that the misunderstanding of Chile should be noted in the article. It is important to show that Chile made the mistake of thinking the secret defensive alliance was offensive against it.--[|!*//MarshalN20\\*!|] (talk) 15:19, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Here we go again. This article seems to be doomed to go in déjàvu cycles.
Please go back to my previous post and re-read it. I thought I was quite clear. But perhaps, I'm mistaken in my assumption so me let say this as simple as I can:
That the treaty omits to name or mention a third country (i.e.; Chile) does not mean the treaty per se was not intended or directed to a third country.
Having said that, if a reliable source explicitly states that the treaty was, indeed, seen, understood or thought as offensive, aggressive or whatever other adjective you want to call it, then, we have meet Wikipedia's requirement of verifiability and it should be also included for the sake of neutrality. The exact same thing goes for the defensive claim. And please note, that omissions are by no means proof of anything.
The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true.
In any case, I urgue all parties involved to avoid bringing their own personal opinions or theories into this discussion as they're technically worthless in terms of inclusion.
Likeminas (talk) 16:01, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Read in [4] Republic of Chile. Foreign Ministry. Archive 1884: "Copia Tratado de Alianza Defensiva Perú-Bolivia (1873)"
  • Read in [5] Chilean newspaper : "Perú (quien intervino producto de un tratado defensivo..."
Arafael (talk) 22:31, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Those are good sources Arafael. We have positively established that the treaty was at least Defensive and Secret.
I've deleted (in bold) the unsourced part Chile acknowledging its awareness of the Bolivia-Peru alliance was offensive to Chile.
Likeminas (talk) 13:33, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Marschall wrote:

if Peru and Bolivia viewed it as defensive, the treaty is therefore upon the eyes of the international community as legally defensive

That is false. Iran says that they don't want to build the bomb. Do the international comunity believe that? Someone yes, others no. In our case Bolivia and Peru say the pact is defensive. That is a fact: they say that, the defensive character of the pact is not the fact.

Marschall wrote:

it is important to mention that Chile misunderstood the secret treaty as aggresive

That is your personal POV. You say misunderstood, correct is:

it is important to mention that Chile    understood the secret treaty as aggresive

I can see now that the problem is bigger than I supposed at the beginning of my contributions to this article. We have to begin with the finding of the facts and then write about the interpretation and consequences of the facts in the three countries. I considerer essential to describe following FACTS:

  1. the business competition between Callao and Valparaiso after the independence of Peru and Chile, the Peruvian tax for ships entering Valparaiso
  2. the Boundary treaty of 1866, 24°S and the 50%-50% tax, and his failure
  3. the nationalization of the guano in Peru at the beginnig of the 1870s and the desolate Peruvian budget
  4. the superiority of the Peruvian navy at the beginnig of the 1870s and the Mejillones incident (Quiroga-Putsch intent)
  5. the Chilean order for two ironclads in UK
  6. the secret alliance treaty, called defensive, the attempt to bring Argentina, the Peruvian fear that Brasil joints Chile.
  7. the Boundary treaty of 1874 and the prohibition to raise the tax
  8. the arrival of the first ironclad to Chile and the change in the foreign policy of Peru tending to pospone the Argentine sign of the alliance treaty
  9. the Bolivian raise of Tax, the occupation of Antofagasta
  10. the Peruvian attempt to stop the war and after the war, the change in the foreign policy of Peru tending to bring the Argentine sign of the alliance treaty

I will bring the references to this facts as soon as posible. If you think that there some issues needless, redundant or other needed facts, let us know.

Please, be cool, do not use so much bold in your comments.

Marschall: Who has said that Chile    understood the secret treaty as aggresive? . Where did you read that?

--Keysanger (talk) 12:22, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Read in [6] page 252. "Storia de lla guerra d'America fra Chilì, il Perù e la Bolivia"
lo storico chileno Barros Arana dice nella sua cosidetta Historia de la Guerra del Pacifico, che era un Trattato di alleanza offensiva e difensiva. Questo può dare una idea del modo come si interpretano e riferiscono i fatti nel Chili.
Chilean historian Barros Arana said in his book History of the Pacific War, a treaty of alliance offensive and defensive. This can give an idea of how they interpret and report the facts in Chile
Arafael (talk) 13:23, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Likeminas, how have you positively established that the treaty was at least Defensive? --Keysanger (talk) 16:17, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fairly easy Keysanger; I clicked the realiable sources provided by Arafael and read them. I suggest you do the same.
Likeminas (talk) 16:21, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That don't change the fact that that is what they say. --Keysanger (talk) 18:28, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keysanger, you are writing only one POV text (Bulnes). Include all POV in order to reach NPOV. Arafael (talk) 18:46, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Keysanger;
if you took your time to read the source from the Chilean Foreign Ministry archive[7], then, we wouldn’t be having this rather unworthy and unconstructive discussion of saying "they say that", and most importantly you wouldn't be blindly reverting other people’s edits.
As far as I can tell, sources from all sides (Peru, Chile and Bolivia) seem to agree that it was Defensive.
If you claim otherwise, then, the burden of proof is now on you.
Likeminas (talk) 19:33, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Likeminas,

I don't need any proof, because I use the source of the pact. The pact says this is a defensive alliance and I corrected your contribution ("it was a defensive pact") with they called it a defensive alliance. You have to proof that the pact was defensive and you can't do it because that is, as Arfael contribution states, (lo storico chileno Barros Arana dice nella sua cosidetta Historia de la Guerra del Pacifico, che era un Trattato di alleanza offensiva e difensiva. Questo può dare una idea del modo) come si interpretano e riferiscono i fatti nel Chili. ("how they interpret")

If you say "defensive", that is a interpretation of the history, it is not a fact and if you want to publish that in english Wikipedia, you have to say "Diego says it was a defensive pact". Don't get confused with the name and the content of a idea. The Hitler-Stalin Pact was officially titled the Treaty of Non-aggression between Germany and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. In reality Hitler used the pact to prepare the Operation Barbarossa, that is, the invasion of the Soviet Union. Other example: Mission Accomplished said George W. Bush. Would you write an article and say "the mission was accomplished". No!, you would write, Bush said: Mission Accomplished.

Do you actually mean that is a proof?. For God's sake!. That is any thing but a historical study of the War of the Pacific, That is a list of documents kept in the Chilean Foreign Officce. Your Italian "proof" is a proof for me: That are interpretations of the pact, says the text.

So, I think, I have explained my reasons why I reverted your changes. I apologize for my english and request you urgently to correct it if you have time for.

Arafael,

stay cool. In my last contribution to the discussion, I put a list of issues I wanted to expand. Among others I wrote:

4. the superiority of the Peruvian navy at the beginnig of the 1870s and the Mejillones incident (Quiroga-Putsch intent)

If you think that is incorrect, then explain first why do you think so. Wich issues should be assigned to an article, that is a controversial theme. I promise you, you will ignite the war again if you try to coerce my freedom to cooperate with Wikipedia.

By the way, the superiority of the Peruvian navy at the beginnig of the 1870s and the census of Antofagasta are not controversial. You find it overall.

May I move this discussion page to archive and open a new one?. We have advanced a lot at the last days, and the discussion is exciting but my DSL-provider will go bankrupt.

--Keysanger (talk) 10:18, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keysanger, who in the world do you think you are? You have no right to move this ACTIVE discussion into an archive just because you feel like it. Seriously, this is a blatant example of Wikipedia:Gaming the system.--//[*]MarshalN20[*]\\ (talk) 02:51, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Continuning the discussion, all I see here from your part Keysanger is a highly biased POV. You seem to think of yourself as some sort of heroic defender, with idiotic little phrases such as: "I promise you, you will ignite the war again if you try to coerce my freedom to cooperate with Wikipedia." Come on gentlemen! Wake up, we're not having a "mini war of the pacific" here. Three users, Likemina, Arafael, and me (MarshalN20), all agree that the neutral third party sources (from Peru, Bolivia, and Chile) demonstrate that the alliance between Peru and Bolivia was defensive. However, it will be impossible to work with people who will only respond: "I don't need any proof, because I use the source of the pact." If you don't want to contribute to this article in a peaceful manner, please do go play your little war games elsewhere Keysanger.--//[*]MarshalN20[*]\\ (talk) 02, 5 July 2009 (UTC)


Keysanger:

I’m afraid you do not understand how Wikipedia works. Or perhaps you do not want to understand it.

Look, it is a fairly simple process.

If there’s a reliable source that states (in this case) that the treaty was defensive, then, the claim that the treaty was, indeed, defensive is verifiable. Wikipedia not as concerned with this statement being “the truth” as much as it is concerned with it being verifiable.

Now, if you dispute the claim that the treaty was defensive, then, you need to provide another reliable source that contradicts it.

The documents from the Chilean Foreign ministry are reliable sources whether you like it or not.

Finally, you should know that your interpretations, analogies and snippy remarks won’t get you anywhere here. Only reliable sources will.

Likeminas (talk) 15:57, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

5 Pillars of Wikipedia (Random addition by Keysanger)

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia incorporating elements of general and specialized encyclopedias, almanacs, and gazetteers. All articles must strive for verifiable accuracy: unreferenced material may be removed, so please provide references. Wikipedia is not the place to insert personal opinions, experiences, or arguments. Original ideas, interpretations, or research cannot be verified, and are thus inappropriate. Wikipedia is not a soapbox; an advertising platform; a vanity press; an experiment in anarchy or democracy; an indiscriminate collection of information; or a web directory. It is not a newspaper or a collection of source documents; these kinds of content should be contributed to the Wikimedia sister projects.
 
Wikipedia has a neutral point of view, which means we strive for articles that advocate no single point of view. Sometimes this requires representing multiple points of view, presenting each point of view accurately, providing context for any given point of view, and presenting no one point of view as "the truth" or "the best view". It means citing verifiable, authoritative sources whenever possible, especially on controversial topics. When a conflict arises regarding neutrality, declare a cool-down period and tag the article as disputed, hammer out details on the talk page, and follow dispute resolution.
 
Wikipedia is free content that anyone may edit. All of Wikipedia's text is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Sharealike 3.0 Unported License (CC-BY-SA); much of it is also licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL). It may be distributed or linked accordingly. Recognize that articles can be changed by anyone and no individual exclusively controls any specific article; therefore, any writing you contribute can be mercilessly edited and redistributed at will by the community. Do not infringe on copyright or submit work licensed in a way incompatible with Wikipedia's licensing.
 
Wikipedia has a code of conduct: Respect your fellow Wikipedians even when you may not agree with them. Be civil. Avoid conflicts of interest, personal attacks and sweeping generalizations. Find consensus, avoid edit wars, follow the three-revert rule, and remember that there are 6,911,921 articles on the English Wikipedia to work on and discuss. Act in good faith, never disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point, and assume good faith on the part of others. Be open and welcoming.
 
Wikipedia does not have firm rules besides the five general principles presented here. Be bold in editing, moving, and modifying articles. Although it should be the aim, perfection is not required. Do not worry about making mistakes. In most cases, all prior versions of articles are kept, so there is no way that you can accidentally damage Wikipedia or irretrievably destroy content.

Third opinion [8]

well done Marschall!

But what you told there is again not the truth. You wrote:

one user who claims an alliance pact to be aggressive (with no use of a reliable source)

I think, you mean me, but I didn't say the pact was aggressive. I said/say, that defensive/ofensive are interpretations of the pact and request to put it as that, interpretations: they called it defensive. I repeat for the third opinion my arguments given to Likeminas:

I don't need any proof, because I use the source of the pact. The pact says this is a defensive alliance and I corrected your contribution ("it was a defensive pact") with they called it a defensive alliance. You have to proof that the pact was defensive and you can't do it because that is, as Arfael contribution states, (lo storico chileno Barros Arana dice nella sua cosidetta Historia de la Guerra del Pacifico, che era un Trattato di alleanza offensiva e difensiva. Questo può dare una idea del modo) come si interpretano e riferiscono i fatti nel Chili. ("how they interpret")
If you say "defensive", that is a interpretation of the history, it is not a fact and if you want to publish that in english Wikipedia, you have to say "Diego says it was a defensive pact". Don't get confused with the name and the content of a idea. The Hitler-Stalin Pact was officially titled the Treaty of Non-aggression between Germany and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. In reality Hitler used the pact to prepare the Operation Barbarossa, that is, the invasion of the Soviet Union. Other example: Mission Accomplished said George W. Bush. Would you write an article and say "the mission was accomplished". No!, you would write, Bush said: Mission Accomplished.
Do you actually mean that is a proof?. For God's sake!. That is any thing but a historical study of the War of the Pacific, That is a list of documents kept in the Chilean Foreign Officce. Your Italian "proof" is a proof for me: That are interpretations of the pact, says the text.

About your next statement:

while three other users (with reliable sources) who claim it to be defensive

I state only that we have to take care not to insult the intelligence of other people.

--Keysanger (talk) 12:47, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"I don't need any proof, because I use the source of the pact." This statement is a clear example of WP:OR, which is a rule you're breaking. You cannot simply interpret something upon your point of view. As of now, you have accepted that Peru and Bolivia saw the alliance as defensive; and that Peru, Bolivia, and Chile accepted the pact as a secret alliance. However, the main point of argument remains when you claim that Chile saw the alliance as offensive and not defensive.--//[*]MarshalN20[*]\\ (talk) 14:34, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nonetheless, once a reliable source is provided from the Chilean Ministry of Foreign Affairs, which is of "restricted" information regarding the War of the Pacific, you deem it as unreliable because you claim it to be a "list of documents." In that particular document you wish to ignore, it clearly presents that the Peru-Bolivia alliance was defensive. In other words, the Chilean government agreed that the Peru-Bolivia alliance was defensive. How exactly is this an insult to intelligence?--//[*]MarshalN20[*]\\ (talk) 14:34, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]



Keysanger:

I’m afraid you do not understand how Wikipedia works. Or perhaps you do not want to understand it.

Look, it is a fairly simple process.

If there’s a reliable source that states (in this case) that the treaty was defensive, then, the claim that the treaty was, indeed, defensive is verifiable. Wikipedia not as concerned with this statement being “the truth” as much as it is concerned with it being verifiable.

Now, if you dispute the claim that the treaty was defensive, then, you need to provide another reliable source that contradicts it.

The documents from the Chilean Foreign ministry are reliable sources whether you like it or not.

Finally, you should know that your interpretations, analogies and snippy remarks won’t get you anywhere here. Only reliable sources will.

Likeminas (talk) 15:58, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ad Hominem

Likeminas, Marshal,

you continue to ignore my arguments and instead use Ad hominem.

Under the title Continuning the discussion Marshall contributed with [9]:

  • Keysanger is a highly biased POV
  • Come on gentlemen! Wake up
  • You seem to think of yourself as some sort of heroic defender with idiotic little phrases
  • please do go play your little war games elsewhere

Likeminas violates the Wikipedia:Assume good faith with [10] I’m afraid you do not understand how Wikipedia works. Or perhaps you "do not want to understand it".

That aren't the appropriate terms for for a discussion under wikipedians. I am not accustomed to that.

Please, stop it, thank you. --Keysanger (talk) 21:08, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're taking my phrases out of context in order to benefit your own strange little POV. Now, about Likeminas, he has been the one that has given you the best Wikipedia:Assume good faith throughout this whole discussion, and yet you accuse him of breaking that when he also agrees that you're taking things overboard with your own Original Research and are gaming the system (Read WP:OR, and Wikipedia:Gaming the system). I'll repeat my words again: You're not a heroic defender of Chile, we're not going to have a "mini war" (as you threatened in your past post), and we're most certainly not going to stand for weak referenced POV to be included in an article that has been heavily improved through the peaceful collaboration of several users.--//[*]MarshalN20[*]\\ (talk) 19:02, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You continue attacking me [11]:

  • Please don't spam the talk page with repetitive discussions

I see you have problems to strike the right note. Please, inform yourself about the Wikipedia:Civility. Thank you Marshal, --Keysanger (talk) 19:19, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lol. I find it amusing that you're Wikihounding me, and continue to game the system in order to ignore the discussion concerning the defensive alliance. Oh, and please don't try to teach me about civility; I've had enough of that in the past and have not done nothing uncivil as of right now.--//[*]MarshalN20[*]\\ (talk) 21:03, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Secret

Do you agree that the pact was secret regards Chile?. Please answer this question without personal attacks. --Keysanger (talk) 21:14, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The pact was secret to all nations in the planet, except for Peru and Bolivia. There was no specific nation targeted. Why are you trying to make Chile seem a victim?--//[*]MarshalN20[*]\\ (talk) 19:46, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do you affirm that Argentina was not informed about the pact? Do you have reliable sources for? --Keysanger (talk) 20:37, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Argentina was notified of the secret alliance only after Chile and Bolivia began to increment on their border disputes. Prior to that, only Peru and Bolivia knew about the alliance. It was secret to Brazil, Colombia, Ecuador, Venezuela, Mexico, USA, Great Britain, France, Russia, Mongolia, China, Honduras, etc. Chile was not targeted.--//[*]MarshalN20[*]\\ (talk) 21:21, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Was Argentina notified of the secret alliance only after Chile and Bolivia began to increment on their border disputes, or was intended in the text of the pact to invite other countries? --Keysanger (talk) 19:10, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Was Argentina notified of the secret alliance only after Chile and Bolivia began to increment on their border disputes, or was intended in the text of the pact to invite other countries? --Keysanger (talk) 22:54, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]


Likeminas, Marshal Arafael:

Marshal abandoned ([12]) 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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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: [13]
  • New York Times: "The defensive treaty of 1873 between Peru and Bolivia" (First column).[14]
  • 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."[15]
  • 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."[16]--//[*]MarshalN20[*]\\ (talk) 21:24, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The following are provided by User:Arafael:

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

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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" [19] 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)[reply]
Ramiro Prudencio Lizón, bolivian historian and diplomat, in "La Razon", bolivian newspaper, digital edition, Feb 20th 2008:[20] 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 [21] "Correo del Sur", bolivian newspaper, Feb 14th 2004.
Arafael (talk) 13:39, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Atilio Sivirichi Tapia, peruvian historian and professor, in his book, "History of Peru", page 193, [22][23]: "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)[reply]
Tommaso Caivano, italian historian, in his book : "History of the American war between Chile, Peru and Bolivia", Page 66 (Il 17 marzo, il Gabinetto...) [24][25] : "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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

Gonzalo Bulnes: Reliable or Not Reliable?

The following source from Gonzalo Bulnes, of his book "Guerra del Pacifico," holds no section where it cites the works he has gathered his information from: [26]. The information Bulnes provides is, up to a certain point, important. However, the article is being heavily cited by the works of Gonzalo Bulnes. Bulnes, a Chilean historian and politician, provides a heavily biased Chilean POV in his works. I've read parts of his book "Guerra del Pacifico," and found text such as this: "Alentado probablemente por el Ministro peruano, Daza inaugura una politica de atropellos, conforme a 10s procedimientos que usaba en el gobierno interior" "Probably urged by the Peruvian minister, Daza inaugurates an aggressive policy, conformed to the 10 proceedings that he used in the interior government" In other words, his works hold no references and have his own POV on the matter ("Probably" is POV. "Aggressive Policy" without references is POV). Therefore, I don't think that this is something that the article should use as a single reliable source for exceptional claims. Bulnes does provide points that the article needs, but I believe we should reach a compromise when mentioning this author:

1)Whenever citing Bulnes, the information cannot be taken as a complete fact (It can and should be challenged when appropiate).
2)The phrase "According to Chilean historian Gonzalo Bulnes" is a requirement in order to specifically mention the person who is providing the information.

What do the rest of you think?--//[*]MarshalN20[*]\\ (talk) 23:36, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think Gonzalo Bulnes is a reliable source.
What do you think about http://www.larazon.com.pe/online/indice.asp ? --Keysanger (talk) 11:18, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've tried to search for more information regarding the newspaper "La Razon." After looking around for more verification on its reliable status, I really could not find much of anything aside from a series of names of people. It doesn't seem to me to be a completely reliable source, so if you (or anybody else) wants to use it in the article it should be with extreme care of only taking the information for what it is and not for what it might be made look.--//[*]MarshalN20[*]\\ (talk) 01:22, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]



I concur with Keysanger this time. Gonzalo Bulnes is a well known Chilean historian. And as most historians, he writes from a documented point of view. I would even argue that most sources (including encyclopedias such as Britannica) have a POV, and ultimately there’s nothing wrong with that, as it is us as contributors that must comply with NPOV, not the source.
Regarding the other two points you raise.
1)I would agree with you if it was changed to; whenever citing X the information can and should be challenge if another reliable source contradicts it.
2)I don’t agree with the proposal of adding according to Chilean historian Gonzalo Bulnes because then we would have to add that kind of "intro" to every single source for the sake of uniformity and neutrality. Imagine an article cluttered with according to Peruvian writer X, according to Peruvian newspaper, according to American/British journalist and so on.
In the end it would just be a mess.
I understand, however, that relying too heavily on Bulnes (or any other single sources for that matter), might not give an overall balance to the article. And that’s why we should try to diversify our sources.
But in order to give some kind of solution, and although I don’t see it as necessary, we could add a notation within the reference stating the nationality of the writer in case someone feels it is relevant and it should be mentioned.
Likeminas (talk) 13:56, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Once again, you make good points Likeminas. I understand your position on including the "According to x historian." However, my main concern still remains open. Gonzalo Bulnes might be as much of a respected or "well known" historian in Chile, but from the information that was provided as reference for Bulnes (The "War of the Pacific" PDF file) there is no Works Cited page or a full list of where he got his information from. I've read other similar historical books, such as King Leopold's Ghost, and the author at the end of his book provides a full list of sources where he got his information from. In other words, how can we certify that Bulnes isn't making up the information if he hasn't provided official references to his work?--//[*]MarshalN20[*]\\ (talk) 01:22, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gonzalo Bulnes delivered a lot of Primary sources like the english version of the 1873 treaty the Godoy papers, (the Chilean Plenipotentiary Minister in Lima) and many of the correspondence between the "parties involved": Lavalle, Godoy, Irigoyen etc. His interpretations of the facts are Chile-biased, yes. But we have to separate the facts from the interpretations and write facts as facts and views of the facts as views of the facts. As Likeminas stated, every writer, we also, shows a tendency to confound it. Diferent is the case when we want to reproduce the Chilean interpretation of the facts. Therefor is Gonzalo Bulnes (1851-1936) an excelent source: he was diputado, Senator and Ex-Plenipotentiary Minister and ex-Extraordinary Ambassador of Chile in the Argentine Republic. He was in midstream.

--Keysanger (talk) 12:48, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Argentina's stance

I think that this particular section of the article would be better suited for the "Characteristics of the War" section. It really wasn't part of the "Crisis" as only the Peruvians and Bolivians knew about this. Chile did not find out about the possible integration of Argentina until later on. What do the rest of you think?--//[*]MarshalN20[*]\\ (talk) 03:41, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, I disagree, because Argentina was directly envolved problems leading to the war, and was a threath for Chile during the war. See Treaty 1881 between Chile and Argentina --Keysanger (talk) 11:21, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
IMO, If we want to make the article flow and be read in a chronological manner, including all relevant events leading up to the actual war, then, the subsection The Argentine stance seems well placed.
Likeminas (talk) 14:07, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Your point does not make sense Keysanger. Argentina might have been a threat to Chile throughout its existance as a nation, but it still had nothing to do with the crisis leading to the War of the Pacific. Likeminas, your argument is logical in terms of the chronology of the article. However, I still don't think that "Argentina's Stance" fits in correctly within the crisis section. Argentina wasn't part of the crisis leading up to the war (It might have been if Chile had found out about the possible Argentine intervention, but such a thing did not happen until the war was already over).--//[*]MarshalN20[*]\\ (talk) 02:17, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As such, I think that we should develop a new section after "Crisis" in order to better fit in the matter. What I'm thinking is a section under a title similar to: "World Perspectives" or "World views on the war." Under that section we could:

1) Add Argentina's perspective on the war (and their possible involvement). 2) Add what the French and British thought about the war (They were by-standers throughout the whole war), and if they provided any support. 3) Add the US interests (they were also involved as by-standers, and later in the article it mentions that they provided support for Peru's continued resistance). What do the rest of you think? (Come up with a better title for the section, if you can or want).--//[*]MarshalN20[*]\\ (talk) 02:17, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree Marshal, it is a good idea such "World Perspectives", I think there are a lot to say about, but we will find many other places where Argentina has to be, at least, mentioned. I think a chapter "International law" could be interesting. I wrote something about conventions regarding Chile and J.Besadre mention the Red Cross in Peru. Both Chapters could be merged also. --Keysanger (talk) 12:04, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
the contribution was [27]:
The Chilean government under President Aníbal Pinto Garmendia let print a book "El derecho de la guerra según los últimos progresos de la civilización" with the following laws:
and intructed[1] the officers of the army and the navy to comply with.

--Keysanger (talk) 12:12, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Refrences

  1. ^ Diego Barros Arana, Historia de la guerra del Pacífico (1879-1880), Volumen 1, page 115
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:War_of_the_Pacific&oldid=301545524"