Talk:Treaty of Defensive Alliance (Bolivia–Peru)

Untitled

This was my proposal [1] Arafael (talk) 13:39, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Article based on one source

This whole article is based upon one source: Gonzalo Bulnes, a Chilean historian. This is obviously completely biased.--//[*]MarshalN20[*]\\ (talk) 05:42, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Don't agree. The article is biased from beginning, but on favour of the Peruvian-Bolivian POV, who define this military pact as "defensive" but should only be named as "military pact". Defensive is a weasel word, which implies taking party and subliminal innocence, which is in no case te point, as this war was consciously provoked by the Bolivian Dictator Hilarión Daza. This is a fact, since he admits this on personal letters (later published) to the peruvian president. --194.203.215.254 (talk) 15:40, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Weasel Words

The term "so-called" is a weasel word. Please refrain from using it.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 14:54, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

article title

I feel that the article title here is not perfectly neutral. The article should probably be called Treaty of Mutual Defense (Peru-Bolivia) and a redirect set up to cater for the old link. Is this okay? Alex Harvey (talk) 08:29, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

I moved the article to the name "Treaty of Mutual Defense (Peru-Bolivia)", but I just noticed that the talk page didn't move. So, by my part, yes, please move the talk page if you can.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 13:24, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Requested move 27 March 2016

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved — Music1201 ^talk 06:13, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

---

Secret treaty of Alliance between Peru and Bolivia (1873) → Treaty of Defensive Alliance (Bolivia–Peru) – The proposed new title is the official name that appears in the document signed between both countries (please see Wikisource and Gibler, International Military Alliances, p. 176). The new title is also the one with the most Google Books hits, with 1,070 results ([2]) compared to the 300 results of the current title ([3]). So, not only does the new name meet the policy requirements for common name, but also happens to be the official name. The current title also has an orthographic error (there is no space between "Bolivia" and the opening parenthesis). Thank you!-- MarshalN20 ^Talk 18:01, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

• Support, though qualified in a minor way as it would be Bolivia–Peru with an en-dash per guidelines at MOS:NDASH (as a random example see U.S.–South Korea Status of Forces Agreement). —Nizolan ^(talk) 03:12, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Problem solved I added the redirect Treaty of Defensive Alliance (Bolivia-Peru) as requested. --Keysanger (talk) 10:09, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

@Keysanger: MarshalN20 has requested a move per the relevant policies on article titles, not the creation of a redirect. —Nizolan ^(talk) 06:52, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

@Nizolan: There are no valid arguments for a change.

1. the official name of the Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact was Treaty of Non-aggression between Germany and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. So the official name is not always and not in this case deciding for the Wikipedia article.
2. Google shows for the current name of the article 32.700 hits that is much more than the wimpy 1.070 hits of the proposed new name
3. Most important is that reliable sources about Latin America diplomacy and studies about the conflict call the pact with the same current name of the article: Secret treaty of Alliance between Peru and Bolivia (1873), e.g. Latin American Diplomatic History: An Introduction by Harold Eugene Davis,John J. Finan. They call the treaty "secret" and prove that the quality of secret was the main character of the pact and one of the reasons given by Chile in its declaration of war.
4. Moreover, there has been some treaties of alliance between Peru and Bolivia (e.g. confederation, against Spain), so we need a different name that differentiate from the other Peru-Bolivia pacts.

Grettings, --Keysanger (talk) 10:15, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

@Keysanger: On these points: (1) I agree, but the relevant policy is WP:COMMONNAME. If the official name is the common name, we use the official name. There is also a preference for the official name where the common name is unclear. (2) MarshalN20's links indicate different numbers for ghits. Can you cite the specific queries you're using? (3) MarshalN20's links also provide reliable sources using "Treaty of Defensive Alliance". (4) I don't see any other pages the page would be confused with, but any ambiguity in page titles can be dealt with by relevant guidelines for disambiguation (hatnotes, disambig page, etc.). —Nizolan ^(talk) 10:23, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

• Support move - as nominator and also per change suggested by Nizolan. Creating a redirect is not the purpose of this RM.--MarshalN20 ^Talk 16:16, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

@Nizolan: As far as I know, Peru and Bolivia signed only one other major treaty during this period, available on Gibler's International Military Alliances; this is the Treaty of Peace and Friendship of 1863 (Gibler, p. 161). Chile and Peru also signed a Treaty of Alliance in 1865, more commonly known as the Treaty of Offensive and Defensive Alliance (see Gibler, p. 166). This is the treaty that later Ecuador and Bolivia also joined, but most texts have them as forming a "Quadruple Alliance" (see [4]).

The name "Treaty of Defensive Alliance" is also supported by notable scholars, including Ronald Bruce St. John, Carlos Parodi, and Bruce Farcau. The Google Books results are very clear. I can also provide search results for both titles in Google Scholar:

•Current title: "Secret Treaty of Alliance" Peru Bolivia (23 hits)

•Move Request title: "Treaty of Defensive Alliance" Peru Bolivia (40 hits)

I think this is a pretty straightforward RM. Keysanger's claims are unsourced and impossible to verify. What we are discussing here is the title of the article, not the interpretations of it from scholars (which would be in the article's body). Best regards.--MarshalN20 ^Talk 16:17, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Name

The name of the treaty has already been established to be the "Treaty of Defensive Alliance". No other common name exists.--MarshalN20 ^Talk 15:13, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Of course there are another names, in fact it is usually named "Secret Treaty". But, for now, we set it to "Treaty of Defensive Alliance". No problem. But it is de rigueur to say that:

• there are another names
• it was secret and not only not published
• it is related with the Peruvian Saltpeter Monopoly.
• it was forged against Chile
• it was, according to the Chilean Government, one of the causes of the War of the Pacific

--Keysanger (talk) 18:02, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

The title of the treaty has already been discussed in the move request. Please cease from disrupting the article. Drop the stick.--MarshalN20 ^Talk 18:13, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Please, refer to following questions:

• there are another names (see refs you deleted)
• it was secret and not only not published (ask someone that explain you the difference)
• it is related with the Peruvian Saltpeter Monopoly. (Carlos Contreras Carranza, Gonzalo Bulnes, etc say it)
• it was forged against Chile (see Burr page 130)
• it was, according to the Chilean Government, one of the causes of the War of the Pacific (see Manifesto to the friedly powers of the Chilean government)

Thanks, --Keysanger (talk) 19:09, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Those references do not support your claim for a different name. All they do is indicate that the treaty was secret. The treaty's secrecy is mentioned in the first sentence (the eight word, to be more exact).

If a different name has so many references favoring it, then the move request would have been in your favor. It was not. If you have any questions about the decision to rename the page, you can always ask the closer User:Music1201.

However, please do not disrupt this article to make a point or to continue petty disputes.

Thanks.--MarshalN20 ^Talk 20:01, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Robert N. Burr, in By Reason Or Force: Chile and the Balancing of Power in South America, 1830-1905, a often cited ouvre about History of Chile, has a special chapter beginning at page 124 with the name "The Secret Treaty Between Peru and Bolivia".

William Jefferson Denis, in his valuable "Documentary History of the Tacna Arica Dispute" published by the University of Iowa Studies in the Social Sciences, has compiled 90 treaties, memorandum, letters, official declarations, etc, etc, about the War of the Pacific. In the index of the compilation, page 5, as well as in page 56, at the beginnig of the text given as introduction to the content, he names the treaty Treaty of Defensive Alliance or "Secret Treaty" between Peru and Bolivia, 1873".

So, there is another name, much more common than the vacuousness of "Treaty of Defensive Alliance". By WP:OTHERNAMES this alternative must be there. --Keysanger (talk) 07:35, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

You're trying very hard to fit any source you find to support your view. The titling of a "special chapter" does not mean that this is an alternative name for the treaty. As you leave me little option, I will report this to AN/I. The misuse of sources from your part is absolutely deplorable.--MarshalN20 ^Talk 08:03, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

With regards to Robert N. Burr and his subsection title, under the logic presented by your argument, Wikipedia should also have an article titled "The Bridge that Two Wars Built" (which is the title he uses in Page 97 for the Chincha Islands War and the Paraguayan War). Burr also has a subsection titled "The United States Retreats" (Page 159). Book subsection titles are a personal decision made by the author; your attempt to manipulate the source to fit your point of view is unacceptable.--MarshalN20 ^Talk 16:53, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Disagreement on the structure of the article's lead

I am going to request a third opinion for the current editing dispute over the structure of the article's lead. Based on the policy of Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section and WP:SUMMARY, I consider that the version currently in place (as of the time of this statement; see [5]) is the one that best meets Wikipedia's guidelines. On the other hand, Keysanger considers that his version ([6]) is the better option.--MarshalN20 ^Talk 02:00, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Response to third opinion request :

I have taken a third opinion request for this page and am currently reviewing the issues. I shall replace this text shortly with my reply. I have made no previous edits on Treaty of Defensive Alliance (Bolivia–Peru) and have no known association with the editors involved in this discussion. The third opinion process is informal and I have no special powers or authority apart from being a fresh pair of eyes. Dig deeper talk 01:08, 29 December 2016 (UTC) Question for @Keysanger::Are you content with how the article reads presently? If so, then there is no point proceeding with 3OP.If not please leave your thoughts. Dig deeper talk 17:25, 29 December 2016 (UTC) @Dig deeper: Of course I am not content. But, at the moment, there is a ongoing Personal Dispute between MarshalN20 and me before the Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#MarshalN20. I think that a discussion with MarshalN20 in this page would make it worse. I will wait until the Arbitration Committee resolves the case. (User MarshalN20 has deleted my announce of the ArbCom case in this page. [7] and [8]). I appreciate your interest and hope that I can count on you for improve the article when the circumstances allow it. --Keysanger (talk) 21:11, 29 December 2016 (UTC) I agree, a third opinion would not be wise given the circumstances. Thanks for letting me know. I'm closing this 3rd Opinion until everything is resolved with arbitration. At that time either party may re-initiate a 3rd opinion request.Dig deeper talk 22:34, 29 December 2016 (UTC)