Talk:War of the Pacific/Archive 12

Archive 5

←

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

WP:OWN again

Hi Alex, Cloudaoc, MarshalN20,

Up until now I made only few edits of the article page, I have preferred to discuss the most striking flaws of the article in the talk page first and get an agreement about before edit. My edits have been the maintenance of the warnings tag {{multiple issues}}, the implementation of agreements from the talk page, and some edits to correct some evident errors.

I believe that edit wars are the most stupid art to improve an article. Hence, when I made a change and it is reverted, then I open an issue to discuss the case. It doesn't mean that I am a second class editor who is not allowed to edit the page. We all, Alex, Cloudac, MarshalN20, Keysanger and all the others, have the same rights to edit the article.

Two weeks ago I decided to contribute to the article with 4 important edits:

1) Many historians argue that some Chilean politicians must have known in some extend about the treaty. On the other hand Bolivia's dictator Daza was informed about the treaty just in December 1878 and Peru's Mediator Lavalle in February 1879.

this edit was changed, I posted a issue (25) and the paragraph was changed again even as the issue was (is) in discussion.

2) I added two titles for sub-sections:

The alliance Peru-Bolivia

The Boundary treaty 1874

This titles have been deleted completely without discussion.

3) I added the section Causes of the War. This section has been deleted completely without discussion.

I raised 25 issues to the article, I provided sound rationale for my cases and I have accepted to negotiate about my views and sometimes accepted that my views were not well founded. I never began a edit war about your changes and I discussed every thing in the talk page. So, I think I have contributed to improve the article and I respected your rights.

I ask you now to respect my rights to edit the article. It doesn't mean that my edits are perfect. If you find it is better another solution then be bold and revert my edits. But if I post it again than let it there and raise a issue to the talk page, don't insist to delete my contribution. It is not vandalism.

Now, you have the choice. I will reinsert my contributions and if you think that my help is not needed then delete it, I will delete this page from my watchlist and you can go on editing the article as you like it.

--Best regards, Keysanger (what?) 08:54, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Keysanger, your points (2) and (3) relate to your bold edits to alter the structure of the article. (I have no opinion about (1).) It is natural that edits like (2) and (3) get reverted. Is your new structure better? Or is the structure that we arrived at by consensus over a long period better? Changes to the structure should be discussed in my opinion. In the case of adding a new section "causes" next to "background", I think that structure is untenable and will ruin the article. I do not see why "causes" of the war should be treated separately from the "background" to the war. Can you find any other articles that have both a causes and a background section separately from each other? Alex Harvey (talk) 11:57, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

it isn't natural that changes are reverted. Have you reverted ALL changes of Cloudac and MarshalN20? Really ALL changes?.

If you have any criticism about my changes, do it as I did it the whole time with your, MarshalN20 and Cloudac changes: open a new issue, expose your claims, your rationale, and get consensus. Don't start a edit war.

Point 1 is in discussion, but the current version is not the version about I raised the issue. Why?, Do you find it correct to change without agreement the text under discussion?.--Best regards, Keysanger (what?) 21:30, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Keysanger, see WP:BRD. Everyone has the right to add; everyone has the right to revert; everyone has the WP:BURDEN of justifying their changes. No one is edit warring - unless you insist on re-adding the material without establishing a consensus in which case you would be edit warring. Alex Harvey (talk) 05:24, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Keysanger, can you please explain why the section subtitles are necessary for the "Background" section?--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 23:22, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Issue 25

The section War of the Pacific#Alliance Peru-Bolivia of the the article [1] asserts that:

Chile held a copy of the treaty since 1874, but pretended to ignore its existance.[11] Bolivia's dictator Daza was informed about the treaty just in December 1878 and Peru's Mediator Lavalle in February 1879.

The given reference [[2] doesn't support the sentence. The author is unknown his work is a general history book and, as stated by Alex, our article wants to describe the events at a closer level of detail.

Neither Sater nor Farcau talk about the "copy of the treaty" although the argued that Chile knew about the treaty. But to argue is not to demostrate.

--Best regards, Keysanger (what?) 12:29, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

If neither Sater nor Farcau talk about a "copy of the treaty", then you cannot challenge my source. If you find a source which explicitly states that Chile did not hold a copy of the treaty since 1874, then we can discuss it. Otherwise, the article follows what the sources present.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 13:50, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

I have added more information and sources to the part. We have a name, Carlos Walker Martinez, as the Chilean minister who knew of the treaty since 1874. It all fits.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 16:30, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

No. Read WP:BURDEN: The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material.

I have already presented the evidence that Chile knew of the 1873 quite early. Why do you keep denying it?--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 23:54, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Keysanger, who are you to say what author is valid or not? Are you qualified to discard the source presented by Marshal? I think not, and the fact than you didn't know the existence of that source doesn't means than this source is not valid. Again, this is not your article Keysanger, its you who must prove than this source is invalid, not Marshal. --Ian (CloudAOC) | ^Talk 00:17, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

I find it hard to believe a reliable source would say that Chile "pretended to ignore its existence". The sentence doesn't really make sense. It would have to say either "pretended not to know" or simply "ignored its existence" but not both. So with that in mind, and since I can't access the links given above, could we get a direct quote from someone who has access? Alex Harvey (talk) 14:36, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Alex, let me help by providing the following:

William Sater, Andean Tragedy, p 36 [3]: "Theoretically, the 1873 treaty was hush-hush, but Santiago learned of its existence within months of its ratification. Chile tactfully chose to ignore the pact's existence, in part because it did not anticipate that either party would invoke it."

I have another source from Montefiore Borchard which also talks about the same thing. I don't think it's necessary to present it unless Keysanger wishes to keep challenging this "issue 25"?

Best of wishes.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 14:47, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

To know about the existence of a secret treaty doesn't mean to know about the content of a treaty. Every one of us knows, or believe to know, about the existence of secrets, secret love, secet weapons, secret liasons, secret trips, etc. The article has to say that the existence has been known, but nothing about the content, the significance, the actuality. --Best regards, Keysanger (what?) 07:55, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree that the quote from Sater doesn't justify the wording in our article at all. Alex Harvey (talk) 03:11, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

@Keysanger, Sater's quote in no way contradicts the source from Edmond Akers. The combined sources actually strengthen the case as Sater presents that Chile knew about the "existence" of the treaty since 1873, while Akers presents that Chile had the full text of it by 1874. The only way you can contradict these sources is if you actually provide reliable evidence against them. To claim that Edmond Akers is "unknown" really only a weak ad hominem; do you seriously expect that to go far?.

@Alex, Keysanger's opening link has the complementary evidence. Here's a direct quote:

Charles Edmond Akers: "The Chilian Government had possessed a copy of the treaty since 1874."

Based on these two sources the text should be as follows: Chile knew of the treaty's existence only a few months after its incipiency, and by 1874 received a copy of it through Carlos Walker, its minister in La Paz. Walker even mentioned the treaty in his 1876 work, Pajinas De Un Viaje Al Traves De La America Del Sur. Chile once again received notification of the treaty through another minister in 1877, when Argentina's senate discussed the invitation to join the Peru-Bolivia defensive alliance.

The other sources can be found in the sentence within the article. Markham is the one that specifically mentions Walker. They're all pieces of the puzzle stating different parts of the same thing. Individually they are worth nothing, but combined they make the picture quite clear. Best of wishes.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 21:36, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

The rewrite is better. I would also drop the editorialising - Chile knew of the treaty's existence a few months after its incipiency, and by 1874 received a copy through Carlos Walker, its minister in La Paz. (Walker mentioned the treaty in his 1876 work, Pajinas De Un Viaje Al Traves De La America Del Sur.) Chile was notified of the treaty through another minister in 1877, when Argentina's Senate discussed the invitation to join the Peru-Bolivia alliance. There is no need to "pile on" about the defensive alliance either. The text has to speak to the reader. Sometimes in these POV battles the text ends up being a lecture directed at other Wikipedians. :) Alex Harvey (talk) 13:51, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Thank you Alex. I am learning plenty about improving articles from your comments, proposals, and suggestions. :)

The paragraph following this information should probably discuss Argentina's role in detail.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 21:04, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

RfC for Issue 10: neutrality, verifiability and encyclopedic worth

There is a long standing discussion about the neutrality, verifiability and encyclopedic worth of the subordinate clause [Miguel Grau] "(known as the "Knight of the Seas" due to his chivalry)". The Discussion can be seen in Talk:War_of_the_Pacific#Issue_10:_Grau. Best regards, Keysanger (what?) 14:21, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Statements from involved editors

• In my opinion the sentence is POV, based in a Peruvian childrenbook and has no encyclopedic worth. Hence it must be deleted without replacement. --Best regards, Keysanger (what?) 14:36, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

• I don't think it is helpful to raise the RFC relative to text in the article rather than relative to MarshalN20's actual proposal. Comments should be about the following text, not the text highlighted in the RFC:

On 21 May 1879, during the Battle of Iquique the Huáscar sank the Esmeralda and ended Chile's blockade of the Peruvian port. Meanwhile, while chasing away the Covadonga, the Peruvian Independencia wrecked near the shallow coastal waters of Punta Gruesa. The naval battle of Iquique gave a tactical victory to Peru: the blockade was defeated and one Chilean ship was sunk and the other retreated. Nevertheless, it was a pyrrhic victory; losing the Independencia, one of Peru's most important ships, was a fatal blow. When news of the defeat reached Santiago, the Esmeralda's crew and commander Arturo Prat became national heroes for their bravery. Captain Miguel Grau's decision to save shipwrecked Chilean sailors and send his formal condolences to Prat's wife earned him widespread recognition to all sides of the conflict, dubbing him the "Gentleman of the Seas".

Alex Harvey (talk) 14:45, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

MarshalN20's proposal repeat the sentence "Gentleman of the Seas", and that is what we are discussing. It is neutral? is it verifiable? has any encyclopedical worth?. --Best regards, Keysanger (what?) 11:32, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

I think my proposal is fair to both important figures of the naval conflict (Prat and Grau), based on what they did in the conflict. Keysanger complains about Miguel Grau because he dislikes any positive statement on a Peruvian figure. Evidenced by his statement:

"We see that the Knight of the Seas (Grau) is much better than a dead in combat (Prat), he is a hero only in Chile. Grau is "of the seas"."--Keysanger

Grau is indeed a trinational hero, honored by Chile, Peru, and Bolivia. This is what bothers Keysanger. He doesn't accept this sourced fact, and so wants to impose his version of reality in the article.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 15:35, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Your proposal repeat the gentleman story. That is what we are discussing. It is neutral? is it verifiable? has any encyclopedical worth?. --Best regards, Keysanger (what?) 11:32, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Statements from uninvolved editors

• This is confusing. The article currently states that Grau was "known as the 'Knight of the Seas' due to his chivalry", and this is sourced to Chile en la guerra del Pacífic, which is not in English. I can't tell whether the source supports this claim, and I can't assess the reliability of the source. Alex Harvey's quote, on the other hand, is not in the article at this time, and does not seem to have been in the article at any time in the recent past. The sentence as it stands ("Knight of the Seas") does not seem to have any issues with POV problems or peacock terms; I'm just concerned with whether reliable sources claim that he was called this for the reason given. If so, it should stay in the article. If not, it should be removed. As for Alex Harvey's extended quote, that would be much more problematic. You would have to show reliable sources that claim he had widespread recognition from all sides. I would prefer the original wording, if it can be sourced. – Quadell ^(talk) 20:20, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

I'll help with the sources.

• Google Books ("Knight of the Seas") [4], 5 results.
• Google Books ("Gentleman of the Seas") [5], has 3 results.
• Google Books ("Caballero de los Mares") [6], has 292 results.

In fact, the first time than the term "Caballero" (Knight) were used to describe Grau was shortly after the battle of Iquique, by the Prat's widow, in her letter thanking the return of the Prat's personal belongings when she said: "...con la hidalguía del caballero antiguo...". This is not "folklore", as Keysanger said, is a fact. This letter, along with the rescue of the Esmeralda's sailors cemented the Grau's reputation as a "Knight", than was later documented in several books and academic works. Greetings. --Ian (CloudAOC) | ^Talk 03:41, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Do you really think that 200 hits in Google means that he is known?. 200 is nothing in Internet. --Best regards, Keysanger (what?) 11:32, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Quadell, thanks for your comments. For the record, I have already supported Keysanger's position that I don't believe due weight has been established in reliable sources - certainly not in English language sources and this is the English Wikipedia. The extended quote you attributed to me is actually by MarshalN20 and I believe it is an improvement over what is in the article. The issue is not whether this material can be reliably sourced - all editors agree that the proposal is supported by reliable sources. The question is - does it belong in the article or is it really "promotional" material that doesn't belong in an encyclopaedia. Alex Harvey (talk) 07:12, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

• The "Knight of the Seas" or "Caballero de los Mares" and "Gentleman of the Seas" should be clearly set forth with documentation. It seems clear that Peru considers Grau to be a military hero. Prat's widow spoke of his kindness in returning her husbands belongings. Do we have documentation that those in Chile, Bolivia, and perhaps other places, spoke of Grau as a "gentleman" or a "knight"? DonaldRichardSands (talk) 07:51, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Here are some more sources:

• Miguel Grau Honored in Bolivia ([7]): A whole plaza in Bolivia's capital city of La Paz is named in honor of Miguel Grau. Ceremony included high ranking military officials from both countries.
• Jose Vargas Valenzuela, Bolivian historian ("Naval Tradition of the Peoples of Bolivia", p. 61): "Of nothing was worth the great deed of the caballero de los mares, Miguel Grau, who with his monitor 'Huascar' attained the maximum glory."--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 14:29, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
• Elias Llanos, Chilean film director and producer ([8]): "In Chile, Grau is known as a caballero because he was respectful with the body and family of Arturo Prat. This goes further than the differences both countries may have."

I believe these establish the logical conclusion discussed at present. If Keysanger wishes to counter this argument now he needs to provide his own sources which verify his position. Best regards.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 14:29, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

• Wikipedia articles should help the readers learn more about the topic. If Miguel Grau was known for his acts of kindness in battle, that is important. Grau was killed early in the war; to mention his reputation for kindness toward his enemy is interesting, not promotional. Peru regarded him as a hero, a model of a warrior. Prat's widow found Grau's kindness noteworthy. How many warriors are noted for this thoughtfulness? It is certainly worth mentioning. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 16:36, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, Wikipedia articles should help the readers learn more about the topic, but not presents partial views as neutral views. As the Cloudac's list show, only Peruvian books call him a "caballero". And that must also must readers learn more about the topic. I added "in Peru" to finish the issue. --Best regards, Keysanger (what?) 18:57, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, this issue is not resolved. The RFC, now that you've raised it, should stay open for about one month. Alex Harvey (talk) 00:58, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

• Exclude "(gentleman/knight of the seas)" - First, such a parenthetical comment is better off in the Miguel Grau article, not in this article. Second, it smacks of exaggerated flattery, see WP:PEACOCK. Third, Google Books shows virtually no support for the sobriquet. Fourth, in an article about the war, editors should strive to remain very neutral, and not insert any material that may suggest favoring one adversary over the other. --Noleander (talk) 12:53, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

GoogleBooks is not the only available test for notability, as both the Spanish search in GB and the English search in the Google engine demonstrate that the term is notable. The reason for the usage of the term is to explain the person's notability in relation to the war, not mere flattery.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 17:59, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

I think for the purposes of understanding the course of the war, the fact that Grau was a national hero is all that the reader needs to know. That said, if you can show that another part of the war can't be properly understood without knowing that Grau was nicknamed "gentleman of the sea" then I would probably change my view. You would need reliable sources making the point of course. Alex Harvey (talk) 15:51, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

I have tried to explain the importance of Grau's notability (as well as Prat's) in the update made on the Naval Campaign section. To summarize the importance of his notability: Grau (as the "knight of the seas") kept Peruvian morale high despite being at an obvious loss in the early stages of the war. In order to understand why Grau was notable, we have to explain the notability itself (which includes explaining how he became notable in the first place: from Grau the commander to the hero "knight of the seas"; as ridiculous as it sounds, there are plenty of instances in history where a single man is made by society into a some sort of super-being, and all rally behind him). Hence, Grau's notability is relevant to the conflict itself rather than just in the article about him.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 16:07, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

• Exclude phrase, in all forms: same reasoning as Noleander, above. There are insufficient references to support this as meaningful to the war itself, and a definite air of PEACOCK. --Ludwigs2 10:46, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Before any more comments are made, this is the current version of the text in question:

Grau's gallantry during the conflict, especially his treatment of Prat's family and rescue of Chilean sailors in Iquique,[37] gained him widespread recognition as the Caballero de los Mares ("Knight of the Seas").[38][39] His notability upheld Peruvian morale in the early stages of the conflict as,[40] despite being outnumbered, his monitor Huáscar held off the Chilean navy for six consecutive months.

Best regards.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 03:47, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

• Exclude phrase, in all forms: as per comments above. As stated by others, the current article is about the War in the Pacific, not Grau himself. The connection between this name and the War itself seems to me to be very, very weak. Inclusion of the term elsewhere, like the subject's biography, is of course another matter entirely. John Carter (talk) 00:40, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

How many sources are "sufficient" to satisfy it as meaningful to the war?--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 03:54, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Ideally, we would seek perhaps encyclopedic articles/overviews of roughly similar length to this article which contain the information as sufficient basis for believing that the material is of sufficient importance to be included. To the best of my knowldge, such has not been provided here. John Carter (talk) 20:44, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Battle of Chorrillos

Hi, there is a huge mistake in the pharagraph about the battle of Chorrillos. There wasn't 30,000 Chileans against 10,000 Peruvians at this action, there were 23,200 Chileans facing 18,000 Peruvians, both data according to and

The link you provide is not working, and your claim that Jorge Basadre wrote a book in the year 2000 is extremely problematic (the man is dead). This creates uncertainty and diminishes the credibility of your claim. As I cannot access either sources, could you please provide direct quotes from these works? Best regards.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 04:43, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Issue 4: Peru enter the conflict

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

Unresolved

The current version [9] states without any references that:

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

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

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

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

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

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

and in page 130:

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

and below:

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

More sources:

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

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

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

Put the facts on the article: the declaration of the foreign minister, the aim to monoplize the salitreras, and the other comments of the given sources, etc. --Best regards, Keysanger (what?) 10:20, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Issue 5: the 10 cent tax

{{POV}}

Unresolved

The current version [10] of the article states that:

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

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

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

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

The article already explains the situation in the "Crisis" section. Perhaps it would be best if the section was renamed "Taxation crisis" or "Taxation controversy".--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 03:08, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Exactly. why is this an issue if it's already explained in another section of the article? --Ian (CloudAOC) | ^Talk 05:50, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Issue 13: which discomfited the Chileans, However

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

Unresolved

The current version [11] of the article states that:

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

I cite from WP:EDITORIALIZING:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Proposal:

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

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

No Keysanger, your proposal is clearly one-sided.

Supporting sources for my proposal

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

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

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

Agree Is quite clear, and again, Keysanger thinks than just saying "no" is enough to stop everything than he doesn´t like. Greetings. --Ian (CloudAOC) | ^Talk 20:13, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Issue 18: Mutual defense pact

{{POV}}

Unresolved

Regarding the current version of the article [12], the mutual defense pact was called "mutual defense pact" but the historians deiagree about its character defensive or offensive. Hence, the article has to say the difference and in no case present the pact as defensive. --Best regards, Keysanger (what?) 12:05, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

I've seen quite a number of reliable sources that simply describe this pact as a "mutual defense pact". I also don't agree that the wording says anything one way or the other about whether it was in reality "offensive" or "defensive". Sater simply describes it as a "defensive alliance": "It was fear of Chile's purchase of warships that encouraged Lima to enter into a defensive alliance with Bolivia in 1879" (Andean Tragedy, p. 36). On p. 37, Sater implies that even the upset Chilean public agreed that it was a "defensive alliance". In Farcau, we find the same. On p. 38, "As a defensive alliance, the 1873 treaty was really rather thin". He goes on say essentially that it was a treaty without "teeth". On p. 44 Farcau attributes the idea of "hostile alliance" as only "the official Chilean argument" - suggesting that he doesn't think even Chilean politicians sincerely believed this. He seems to regard the official Chilean rhetoric as disingenuous. So I'm struggling to see how a simple statement of a simple fact that a treaty was a "mutual defense pact" can be seriously regarded as POV. Alex Harvey (talk) 13:13, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

I think Alex has pretty much taken this issue down with direct evidence.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 13:33, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Right, then there is no problem to say that the pact was called defensive. I correct the wordig of the article. --Best regards, Keysanger (what?) 19:21, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

No, what this means is there is no problem to leave the wording exactly as it appears in reliable sources - unless you want to make an argument for why "known as" is a better wording. Alex Harvey (talk) 03:43, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Issue 19: Secret treaty

{{POV}}{{confusing}}

Unresolved

Regarding the current version of the article [13], the so-called treaty of mutual defense was secret and the article has to state this fact. --Best regards, Keysanger (what?) 12:05, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

This is an interesting issue, and I'm glad you finally raised it. Let's take a close analysis to the matter:

1. The treaty is not titled "secret".
2. That the treaty was signed in secrecy is true, but does that make it secret?
3. Dates' : The Mutual Defense Treaty was signed in 1873. Chile had a copy of the treaty since 1874. Argentina and Brazil already knew about it by then as well.
4. If everyone involved in the situation (Bolivia, Chile, and Peru in the short spectrum; Brazil and Argentina in the wide spectrum) already knew about the treaty for nearly 5 (five) years prior to the start of the war, is the treaty actually secret?

Conclusion: The Mutual Defense Pact of 1873 was signed in secrecy, but it was not a secret treaty as everyone knew about it by 1874 (a mere year later). Chile pretended not to know about the treaty, and that's a completely different story. Best regards.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 13:42, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't really agree that because all parties knew about it that stops a treaty which was concluded in secret from being a "secret treaty". The trick would be to word it in such a way that the reader isn't confused into believing that Chile didn't know about it at the time it was activated. I can't see myself that simply omitting this detail from the lead doesn't makes a huge difference. Alex Harvey (talk) 10:17, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps we could use the term "secretly-signed" where appropiate?--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 20:46, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I think than the term "secretly-signed" is more appropiate. Greetings. --Ian (CloudAOC) | ^Talk 00:03, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

I think there is a lot of confusion about the secret alliance. I moved two paragraphs and added one more to a new subsection. I hope you agree. If not, please, open a new issue. --Best regards, Keysanger (what?) 19:39, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

My edits have been reverted. Please don't delete the "multiple issues"- tag until the ssue is resolved. --Best regards, Keysanger (what?) 07:44, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

The secret Alliance is a very complicated issue, hence I created a new sub-section with 3 paragraphs. I hope that will help us to find a solution. --Best regards, Keysanger (what?) 07:53, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Please stop disrupting the article for the saking of making a WP:POINT. The Background section is already in summary-style, per WP:SUMMARY, and no necessity exists to create stub sub-sections within it.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 13:51, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

my edits on this section is also being edited out and labeled as vandalism. regrettably by the same person over and over again. To repeat again, im editing in good faith, im just mentioning the authors on the treaty section, im NOT altering the context, i find the lack of transparency about where the sources come from very disturbing and for me being personally chastised very obnoxious--IggyAU (talk) 22:42, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Regarding your edits in this part of the article, you fail to notice that not everyone mentioning Chile's knowledge of the treaty is Peruvian. Hence, your claim that "Peruvian authors such and such" is erroneous. Given this situation, Ian's revertions are actually justified. Please analyze the sources before making edits to the article. Best regards.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 17:03, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

This issue don't really exists, because the treaty itself is named "Tratado de Alianza Defensiva" in its first paragraph, therefore, the name "Treaty of Mutual Defense" is not only correct but valid, I'll made the correction in the article and close this issue. Greetings. --Ian (CloudAOC) | ^Talk 18:43, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Mahan

This should be placed in a trivia section: The USS Wachusett (1861) commanded by Alfred Thayer Mahan, was stationed at Callao, Peru, to protect American interests during the war's final stages. Mahan formulated his concept of sea power while reading history in an English gentlemen's club in Lima, Peru. This concept became the foundation for his celebrated The Influence of Sea Power upon History.[113][114]84.23.155.84 (talk) 19:43, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Which is hereby done. 84.23.155.84 (talk) 19:48, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Issue 29: Mutual Defense System 1

Unresolved

I never read such name for the secret alliance between Peru and Bolivia. It is pure WP:OR That has nothing to do with the War of the Pacific, what is after the war?, 1885? 1905? 1955?. --Best regards, Keysanger (what?) 16:56, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Resolved by removing the unaccurate phrase from the article with a single and simple edit. There is no need to make an issue, because is not an issue, just a mistake, Can't you do this edition by yourself? Why make an issue of such obvious error?--Ian (CloudAOC) | ^Talk 19:32, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Issue 31: Mutual Defense System 3

Resolved

Nonetheless, Chile, ... knew. This is presented as a fact. It is not. It is a conjecture. --Best regards, Keysanger (what?) 16:56, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

This issue is also invalid because this affirmation is well sourced and cited in the article itself (References 11 to 13). Please, avoid the raise of issues without a proper sustainment. Greetings.--Ian (CloudAOC) | ^Talk 19:48, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

In fact Keysanger, the Treaty existence was known by the Chilean Chancellery almost inmediatly after its signing, as its stated in the page 313 of the book "Historia diplomatica de chile 1541-1938" (2º Edition) by Mario Barros Van Buren, which confirms the text in the article (Minister Walker knowing the existance of the treaty since 1874, and even before). In fact, I'm going to improve that section with this new source, and as you can see, your "issue" never existed. Please be more careful when you made a statement like this. Greetings.--Ian (CloudAOC) | ^Talk 21:10, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Issue 32: Mutual Defense System 4

Disregard

No where in the paragraph appears that Argentina was informed and invited to joint the pact against Chile. It must be said. --Best regards, Keysanger (what?) 16:56, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

The article says: "Chile once again received notification of the treaty through another minister in 1877, when Argentina's senate discussed the invitation to join the Peru-Bolivia defensive alliance", as you can see, the article clearly says than Argentina was invited to join the Alliance, but not "against Chile", again, the Treaty was not an offensive alliance against Chile, as was clearly stated in its articles. Regards.--Ian (CloudAOC) | ^Talk 20:37, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Issue 33: Bolivian declaration of war

Disregard

Nowhere is stated about the Bolivian declaration of war that is a fact in all history books, except 2 or 3 Peruvians and Bolivians books. --Best regards, Keysanger (what?) 16:56, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Keysanger this issue has been already discussed, closed and archived, as you know, with the current text as result of a consensus of the involved editors, as can be verified in the archive 10 of this talk page, and the issue was closed by Alex Harvey as it follows:

@Ian above, the article has already been updated so I'm marking this as "resolved" as you say. @Keysanger, if you decide to raise your RFC please create a new thread for it (as you would have to do anyway). This discussion - as all parties agree aside from Keysangers - has well and truly run its course. Alex Harvey (talk) 15:38, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Therefore, this issue is -again- invalid because it was already discussed and closed.--Ian (CloudAOC) | ^Talk 22:44, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Issue 25: Despite cooperation

Unresolved

The article tries to present the pre-war situation in words of peace and cooperation. There were strong contrary interests between Peru, Bolivia and Chile. Before and during the war, Peru feared that Bolivia could move to the Chilean side. Peru wanted to control the whole commerce of guano and salpeter and, hence they nationalized the salitreras and wanted the help of Bolivia to control the price of the products. That is one of the reasons given by Sater in the contribution I did and was deleted. Please, read again what you deleted. --Best regards, Keysanger (what?) 16:56, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Keysanger, your POV about the description of pre-war situation is not enough to rise an issue about it, you must provide more arguments than WP:OR or this issue must be resolved or disregarded as the others.--Ian (CloudAOC) | ^Talk 06:22, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

No more arguments has been added to sustain this "issue" besides an editor's POV. This issue is closed by lack of sense and arguments. Greetings. --Ian (CloudAOC) | ^Talk 04:24, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Issue 27: On April 5, after Peru resisted both demands

Resolved

In reality, Peru declared the casus confederis. --Best regards, Keysanger (what?) 16:56, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

This is actually a good observation, I'm going to check the sources to revise this issue. Greetings.--Ian (CloudAOC) | ^Talk 02:43, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Unless I am mistaken, the sources explained that Daza (i.e. Bolivia) early on asked for Peru to declare the casus foederis, but the Peruvian government instead sent Lavalle to Chile and tried to prevent (or stall, depending on the point of view) such a situation. Afterwards you have Chile asking Peru's neutrality, and Peru again resisted to make a decision. So, the statement "Peru resisted both demands" is correct.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 05:05, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

I already checked some books and Marshall is right, perhaps the section needs more details about this fact, but -again- this is not an issue, not even a controversial point. I'm going to close it. Greetings. --Ian (CloudAOC) | ^Talk 15:57, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Issue 28: After war

Resolved

The article states that

After the War of the Pacific, Peru was left without saltpeter production, the Chilean production decreased to 15%, and Great Britain's production rose to 55%. That has nothing to do with the war. --Best regards, Keysanger (what?) 16:57, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

It relates to the section and is relevant to the "Saltpeter War". Perhaps it should be best for it to be in the "consequences" section?--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 05:06, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Agree This paragraph is better suited for the "Consequences" section. And again, there is no need to make an issue of such a simple thing. Greetings. --Ian (CloudAOC) | ^Talk 15:45, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Alright, I moved the information to the consequences section. Regards.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 23:58, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

repaso

Most of the information about the repaso seems to come from one source, i've added the author's name to the small piece just to add some clarity about how genuine these claims are, i know there's been an edit war about this issue, --MarceloPR (talk) 10:03, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

There has been no edit war over the matter, but rather just User:IggyAu vandalizing the article and getting a ban. No controversy exists as to the existence of the repaso (none has been demonstrated up to this point). Please present sources to validate your claim. Regards.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 14:27, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately MarshallN20 you and Ian have always considered the article as your own. There is a lot of disagreement about the content, there are more than 20 issues that you and Ian have closed as non-existent, resolved, irrelevant etc. Under this circumtances you make impossible to improve the article. For example Graus chavalrey. I posted a RfC and the majority of the editors agree that such theme doesn't belong, at least, to this article. But you continues to impose your personal opinion.

The same in the case of repaso. There are P e r u v i a n s sources but you never provided reliable sources for. If you insist I agree to to mention it but it must be said that it is only present in Peruvian sources. Do you agree?. --Best regards, Keysanger (what?) 11:59, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

It's laughable that you discard the reliability of a source because it was written by Peruvians. Provide sources that demonstrate the "repaso" is a controversial subject, and then (and only then) will I discuss this matter. Any changes from your part regarding this case will be immediately taken to the AN/I. Regards.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 15:02, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry to come uninvited and without absolute knowledge of Wikikpedia's rules, but to me, it makes no sense that anyone will ever find a document disproving "repaso" if it is a non-existent topic in Chile. I'm not saying that it didn't happen, but it makes more sense to prove with more than one disputable source something, than to prove that something didn't happen. (eg: prove that there weren't any green werewolves in mars in 1933)- Alvaro — Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.86.230.136 (talk) 20:48, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

We have several sources confirming the existence of repaso: Mariano Felipe Paz Soldán, Humberto Cayoja Riart, Carlos María Muñiz, Jorge Basadre, Fernando Silva Santisteban ([14]). So, given the sources, according to Wikipedia's rules we present what the majority of the sources present. It wouldn't surprise that Chilean historiography ignores the topic (however, the likely situation is that their work on the matter has not been electronically uploaded), but that's a separate discussion. Best regards.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 02:10, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Just a query

has there ever been any documentaries or movies about this war? If so, can someone kindly list them please--Chelios123 (talk) 09:00, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

I know some movies and tv shows have been made over the years, but they're all worthless. Not only is the filming quality terrible, but the information is biased depending on the producer's nationality. Regards.--MarshalN20 | ^{Tal k} 15:39, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi Chelios,

Yes, there is a Chilean film about the war. Caliche sangriento directed by Helvio Soto in 1969. Sorry for the appalling state of the article. --Best regards, Keysanger (what?) 20:16, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

thank you Keysanger I appreciate your help, it's very hard to find any films or documentaries on this war. regards --Chelios123 (talk) 12:38, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

With YouTube, using the search term "Guerra del Pacifico", plenty of movies show up. The difficult thing is finding something that is actually worth watching, and "Caliche Sangriento" is certainly not one of them. Regards.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 15:27, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

"Epopeya, La guerra del Pacifico" is fairly neutral with interviews with historians of Bolivia, Chile and Peru. Chiton magnificus (talk) 22:29, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, Epopeya is relatively better than the others. The problem is that it is still not quite as accurate, and its Chilean bias is extremely obvious. I mainly enjoyed it for the graphics.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 23:40, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Reverts by an editor

Frist revert was with summary "Writing several names in the introduction is not constructive". The names in question are widely known alternate names af the war. MarshalN20' deletion of them is hardly an improvement. The second revert was with even more stange explanation: "Please read WP:RDR". I fail to see how WP:RDR justified deletion of non-trivial useful information. I am waiting for an explanation of this deletion stated 'clearly, so that a meaningful discussion can happen.

I left the following message in the user's talk page, which he chose to disanswer. "An editor since 2008 (and a proffessional historian, as you claim) should understand how important is to mention all possible names, especially for less-than pop topics, i.e., other than pokemon and pornstars. This is vital in search for information, especially if one starts search from poorly translated or even foreign sources. Also, I am baffled with your understanding of the term "constructive". Not to say that you reverted to a verison with a misleading wikipipe." The wikipipe in question is for saltpeter->Potassium nitrate, which is false. But it requires to know the subject to notices this: Chile is mining Sodium nitrate. Locador (talk) 17:39, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

I think what MarshalN20 is driving at is that there are no redirects for those names (the ones that were added in boldface). So the correct solution is either to create redirects for those names so that they point here to this article, or (at a minimum) remove the bold face type and simply mention them as other names for the conflict. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 18:09, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Why don't check what you think before posting it to the whole world wide web? Saltpeter War, Guano War, etc. I worked hard yesterday to fix a series of mistakes and gaps in the overlapping areas, why don't you give me a good TLA, such as AGF. As for your second part of the advice, you are off base again: we are discussing total deletion of content, not some minor formatting fixes. Locador (talk) 18:49, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Noticed this earlier today and thought (Locador's) you edit mostly fine. The redirects seem to be in place, with one a disambiguation page. AzureCitizen has a good point about the boldface; it jumped out, so a tweak to italics would be reasonable (which I'll look at doing). Alarbus (talk) 19:17, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Per WP:LEAD, the purpose of the lead is to summarize the information from the article. The introduction is not to serve as a place where several names are listed. Other names used to describe the war include, but are not limited to:

1. Ten Cents War
2. Second War of the Pacific (the first being the Chincha Islands War)

Trying to put primary emphasis on Spanish is equally erroneous. This is the English Wikipedia (despite articles like the War of the Triple Alliance might indicate otherwise. hahaha). Regards.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 01:03, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

All this good and well, but dos not justify persistent deletion of valid information. Especially by blind reverts. This is my last edit on this page. I thoiroughly dislike dealing with page owners who aggressively disrespect other contributors and don't understand what they actually wrote. Locador (talk) 01:29, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

I can't find "Salitre" in the dictionary ([15]), so I still don't see how you can call it a "perfect English word." You can leave if you want to; I honestly don't care (why does everyone make a big deal about their departure from a voluntary project? If you're getting paid, I'd like to get in on the fun! hahaha). In any case, the point here is that etymology is there to explain the names of the conflict. All the cool kids have it (like World War I). Regards.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 01:48, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Well, I learn English from wikipedia (Salitre). I should have known better :-) Apologies. You may want to fix this page, if you are good with English and dictionaries thereof. And I was not making big deal; I was letting you know that you will no longer have to fight me in this page; although in a rather grumpy way. If you still think that your behavior was perfect from the very beginning, fine with me. Locador (talk) 02:41, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Discussion unrelated to improving the article War of the Pacific
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
In a perfect world, fixing pages would be easy. This one is not an easy case considering the current situation reflects a (probably temporary) stand among several users. I'd consider fighting me purposely trying to insult you (breaking WP:NPA), which I don't think to have done. I recommended you include the names in an etymology section, and (after you didn't do it) then went on to do it myself. In essence, following the procedure sponsored by Wikipedia. Regards.--MarshalN20 | Talk 03:27, 25 February 2012 (UTC) Yor last statements are an easily verifiable lie. [16] [17]. While the page indeed became better after all, I would not call your approach cooperative. Locador (talk) 17:37, 27 February 2012 (UTC) Calling me a liar isn't necessarily helping your case. My cooperation is towards the project; if you have nothing better to do than continue carrying the WP:STICK, then I suggest you find something else to do. Regards.--MarshalN20 | Talk 19:30, 27 February 2012 (UTC) I will carry WP:STICK as long as you will keep portraying me an stupid uncooperative person. Your cooperation "towards project" does not give you rights to delete useful nontrivial verifiable information from the article on a whim and even revert-warring to this end. I had no objections when other people rearranged my adition to their likes, as song as they did not delete facts. I am aware that my whinning does not show me in the best light. To those who are ready to jump in and tell me to shut up and do something useful, let me remind you that the behavior similar to that of MarshalN20 is for quite some time in the limelight of the news media as a deterrent of new editors. Shutting up will only reinforce this person in his right to revert anything for a sole reason of misplaced word or missing coma. As I said, I don't care much about editing of this particular article, but I am not going to tolerate smearing me with dirt for a great crime of adding a single important verifiable and referenced fact into the article. Locador (talk) 20:13, 27 February 2012 (UTC) Per WP:TALK and as this thread no longer involves discussing how to improve the article War of the Pacific, it would be best if editors either 1) let it drop per WP:STICK, 2) continue discussing the matter on private user talk pages, or 3) take any important issues they feel are unresolved to either Wikipedia:Wikiquette assistance (preferably) or Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents (if they feel administrator intervention is necessary). If anyone would like to post something new concerning how to improve this article, please start a new section for others to take a look at. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 00:25, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Issue 23: References

{{cite check}}

Resolved

There are a lot of unnedded references, for example:

• Peru and Chile signed a treaty of alliance against Spain on December 5, 1865.[4]
• The treaty established the 24th parallel south as their mutual boundary.[5]
• An additional clause kept the treaty secret.[8]
• Chile was not directly mentioned in the treaty text and was not informed about its existence.[9]
• for 25 years and calling for Bolivia to open up.[5]
• etc, etc.

Perhaps I am wrong but no one disputes such facts. I think we should erase such references. --Best regards, Keysanger (what?) 09:54, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

List every single sentence whose references you want to delete (Don't just write "etc", because nobody knows what you are thinking). Otherwise a proper analysis cannot be made.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 13:41, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

I will use WP:BOLD to delete unneeded references and you will use WP:BOLD if you think that the reference is needed. Right?. --Best regards, Keysanger (what?) 14:52, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Deleting references is not WP:BOLD. Sourced statements and the sources themselves must first be analyzed prior to being deleted.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 16:37, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes. Before. --Best regards, Keysanger (what?) 13:10, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Are you going to provide the sources you are challenging?--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 15:37, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Since this "issue" is not clearly defined by the editor who started it, I'm going to declare it resolved for lack of purpose and arguments. Greetings.--Ian (CloudAOC) | ^Talk 16:19, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Why have you listed this as unresolved? Why do you want to erase references?--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 14:20, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Issue 35: Peruvian mediation 2

Unresolved

Nowhere is said that Peru was not obligated to declare the causus federis, that president Prado didn't want the war and taht he was bulldozed to the war by the Peruvian populace and politicians. --Best regards, Keysanger (what?) 16:56, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Can you provide any neutral source which states than Prado was "bulldozed" by the "Peruvian politicians and population" to declare war against Chile? I see just another case of WP:OR, and if you don't provide any sustain for this issue, it will be ignored. Greetings.--Ian (CloudAOC) | ^Talk 20:45, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

This one actually made me chuckle a bit. Chile declared war on Peru, not the other way around. I do recall, from either the Sater or Farcau source, mentioning that it was Chile's president who didn't want war. Rather, it was the Chilean population who clamored for war and Chilean minister Fierro who orchestrated the failure of Peru's mediation. Regards.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 19:16, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Issue 30: Mutual Defense System 2

Unresolved

The whole paragraph presents the setcret treaty as a harmless alliance, but in reality the treaty was one of the causes of the war and during the Lackawamma conference Peru and Bolivia refused to deactivate the pact. It must be said that Chile saw pact as a aggressive one. --Best regards, Keysanger (what?) 16:56, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

This issue is invalid because the secret pact was not signed explicitely against Chile, not a single article affirm directly or even indirectly such perception, your POV is irrelevant and is also your original research. The treaty wasn't one of the causes of the war, as you know. Greetings.----Ian (CloudAOC) | ^Talk 19:41, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

As I know, the treaty WAS one of the causes of the war, according to the letter of the Chilean government to friendly powers. Inform yourself.--Best regards, Keysanger (what?) 10:34, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Chile used the treaty as an excuse for war, but to outright claim it as a "cause" for it is illogical. The treaty's text is defensive, does not mention Chile, and ultimately encourages the members of the alliance to help mediate conflicts to help prevent any greater conflicts. To claim such a treaty as offensive is completely absurd.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 23:52, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Issue 10 Grau's gallantry

Resolved

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Extended content

This is the continuation of the issue 10, unresolved. For this issue I raised a RfC brought some feedback from the community (see RfC issue 10): For inclusion MarshalN20 DonaldRichardSands Ian Cloudac For exclusion Alex [18] Keysanger (believe me, I am against) Noleander [19] Ludwigs2 [20] John Carter [21] Chiton Magnificus [22] Wikipedia is not a democracy, but as the case "BDoW" shows, sometimes is the only way to resolve cases where consensus can't be reached. I plead for a complete delete of the funny sentences about Grau's chavalry. By the way, I have been also always against the inclusion of glorification of heros, also of Prats, Abaroa, Grau and many others who die for his ideas. In my personal opinion, it is a very reduced view of historical facts, this apotheosis works always for some political ideas, mostly nationalism. But this is my personal opinion, please don't include it in the WP. --Best regards, Keysanger (what?) 11:53, 26 March 2012 (UTC) Um, "chavallery" doesn't appear in the article and hasn't in any of the recent revisions that I checked. Nyttend (talk) 21:23, 26 March 2012 (UTC) Hi Nyttend, thank you for your interest in our discussion. The text has been changed since the begin of the discussion in 2011 and I pasted the wrong word. The right one is gallantry and the controversial paragraph is: Grau's gallantry during the conflict, especially his treatment of Prat's family and rescue of Chilean sailors in Iquique, gained him widespread recognition as the Caballero de los Mares ("Knight of the Seas"). His heroism and success upheld Peruvian morale in the early stages of the conflict. Despite being outnumbered, Grau's monitor Huáscar held off the Chilean navy for six consecutive months. During this time the Huáscar participated in the Battle of Antofagasta (May 26, 1879) and the Second Battle Antofagasta (August 28, 1879). The climax finally came ... Nyttend, do you think that this text is neutral, relevant, balanced and Wikipedia has given the due weight to the facts?, was you taught in the school or did you know anyway about a "Knight of the Seas"?, do you think is it neutral to glorify the heros of one country and to dismiss others?, do you think that the this apotheosis is a task of Wikipedia?, do you think that Abraham Lincoln is more or less important that Nelson?. --Best regards, Keysanger (what?) 12:14, 27 March 2012 (UTC) You're twisting things out of context. Grau was (and probably is only) relevant to the War of the Pacific. The sources demonstrate that his acts upheld Peruvian morale in the early stages of the conflict, which is relevant. Added that the current text in no form or way compares Grau to another figure. Regards.--MarshalN20 | Talk 14:02, 27 March 2012 (UTC) I proceeded to delete [23] the verbose peacock about Prat and Grau according to the majority of the editors involved in the discussion. --Best regards, Keysanger (what?) 10:01, 29 March 2012 (UTC) Deleting the material on the Huascar's actions are in no form or way acceptable. Your deletion of that sourced content has nothing to do with this discussion on Miguel Grau's gallantry, which has now been reduced to half a sentence.--MarshalN20 | Talk 01:59, 30 March 2012 (UTC) Marshall, what is at stakeis not all of Huascars actions but Captain Miguel Grau's decision to save shipwrecked Chilean sailors and send his formal condolences to Prat's wife earned him widespread recognition to all sides of the conflict, dubbing him the "Gentleman of the Seas". Can you imagine the WWII article explaining nicknames of Romel, Paul, etc.? In the aftermath section we can surely write about his Graus later legacy as hero. In the lead and course of actions sections in the article his "gallantry" are just excessive and distracting information from main point. Chiton magnificus (talk) 03:46, 30 March 2012 (UTC) Here Keysanger deletes all of the Huascar's actions ([24]), and here I truncate the disputed information to half a sentence ([25]). Remember to read the article before commenting on things. Regards.--MarshalN20 | Talk 05:29, 30 March 2012 (UTC) The stuff with "gallantery", "valenty", "chavalry", etc has been deleted. Version [26] is a consensus version regarding Grau's description. --Best regards, Keysanger (what?) 15:22, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

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

Other discussions / comments

Issue 26: and Bolivia imposed a 10 cent tax

Unresolved

In the lede there is no mention that the 10 cents tax was completly illegal. That is confirmed by Sater and Farcau. --Best regards, Keysanger (what?) 16:56, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Keysanger, again this is an repeated issue (5: the 10 cent tax) already archived, and allow me to remind you what was your "sustain" for it:

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

"Must say what both sides thought". Keysanger, I must remind you than the article must remain neutral, and -again- the illegallity of the tax is mentioned in the article but in the Crisis section, so, there is no need to repeat it. This issue do not exist.--Ian (CloudAOC) | ^Talk 03:36, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Farcau mentions that the tax was originally passed by the Council of Antofagasta, made up mostly of Chilean nationals, and that it was done to rebuild the port after a strong wave had destroyed important parts of it. The Bolivian government backed the decision of the Antofagasta council, and also justified their taxation with a good set of arguments. Therefore, given the Bolivian POV that the taxation was justified and legal, there is no reason to impose either on the introduction or the article the Chilean POV. Regards.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 19:06, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

This is to me clearly a minor issue. For every single action in the war the nationalistic historiogrpahies of Chile, Bolivia and Peru have their reparations. I we were to include all of them in the leade that would be overwhelmingly lot of text, which is not suitable for an introduction. If Im nor wrong the 10 cent tax issue is explained more fully in background sections. Contrary to what Keysanger seems to believe I don't think Chile is getting "villified" in the article. Chiton magnificus (talk) 01:49, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Disputed neutrality

Someone has tagged this article as: neutrality is disputed. No arguments are offered, why should the tag remain? 84.23.155.84 (talk) 19:37, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Will delete the tag for now. Please reinsert it if some serious NPOV issue is found. Dentren | ^Talk 07:10, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

I reinserted the tag. The issues must be cleared first. --Best regards, Keysanger (what?) 10:53, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Keysanger, I agree with Dentren, the tag is not longer necessary until some relevant NPOV issue appears, remember than all decisions are taken here by consensus, and nobody disagree with the tag removal, just you, and that's not enough. Greetings. --Ian (CloudAOC) | ^Talk 14:57, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Keysanger, remember that this project is a continuous process. Right now we are all busy doing other things (for your part, you seem to be quite involved in another matter here at Wikipedia), and so it is not correct to leave tags hanging around articles if no actual discussion is being made on them. Added that, for the most part, consensus agreed that the article was already in a good state. Dentren, as an uninvolved editor, has every right to remove the tags and I (as well as Ian, and surely Alexh) support his decision.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 15:02, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

The tag is neccesary as long as the article doesn't represent a neutral point of view according to the Wikipedia rules. The reader has to be warned about striking disruption of neutrality.--Best regards, Keysanger (what?) 16:15, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

When only one editor, in this case you Keysanger, argues that the article is non-neutral, and everyone else (Cloud, me, Dentren, and Alex) disagrees with your POV; can you guess where consensus shifts?--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 16:25, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Since many of the issues stated by Keysanger has been solved or discarded for lack of arguments or validity, I'm going to remove the NPOV tag until some serious and valid issue about its neutrality has been established and properly sustained. Greetings. --Ian (CloudAOC) | ^Talk 02:57, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi Coludac,

It is not enough that YOU say there are no problems. Wikipedia is a cooperative work and you should hear the other opinions before you close an issue. For example:

No more arguments has been added to sustain this "issue" besides an editor's POV. This issue is closed by lack of sense and arguments. Greetings. --Ian (CloudAOC) | Talk 04:24, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Did you considered that nowhere in the article is mentioned the part of Peru tht drove to war?. Lavalle in his report about the mediation says it clearly: "all forces in Peru wanted the war". Why dont you consider that? . --Best regards, Keysanger (what?) 12:07, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Nobody is preventing you from including the reasons as to why Peru would have wanted to go to war. However, your position is one which places Peru as the aggressor, when that obviously was never the case. Also consider that Lavalle had no knowledge of the Chilean minister's (Fierro and Godoy) pro-war attitude which is what ultimately led to the failure of Lavalle's mission. Finally, your attitude of posting a series of topics has already been noted as being unproductive to the project. The purpose of the talk page is to improve the article, not to make a WP:POINT of what only you see as a biased representation of the war.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 17:02, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Citing Keysanger: "It is not enough that YOU say there are no problems. Wikipedia is a cooperative work and you should hear the other opinions before you close an issue." Yes and the same is true for you. Some topics are controversial by nature but you can not keep articles like Israel as NNPOV tagged because some minority that are very involved in the topic want so. The War of the Pacific will continue to controversial, but now its time for Keysanger to accept that the possition of mantaining the tag on the basis of a presumed Peruvian hostility towards Chile before the war does not justify the tag. The main points in the article are fairly neutral. Chiton magnificus (talk) 22:32, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Actually I am inclined to agree with Keysanger. There is a POV dispute - it's just that everyone evidently burnt out and got sick of arguing. I don't think the POV issues were resolved to everyone's satisfaction - me included. What is better, though, is tags inserted in the text to make it clearer to the reader what is disputed, rather than a blanket POV tag at the top. Alex Harvey (talk) 05:52, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Everyone got sick of arguing the same points that Keysanger kept raising over and over again. As you can see in "Issue 33" above, he once again began to challenge the established consensus on Bolivia. That to me is disruptive, especially after we spent nearly a month (or two) discussing the issue (over and over again). Remember that my view is that Bolivia did not declare war at all (or "announced" anything offensive to Chile), so the consensus statement is also not of my full acceptance, but (unlike Keysanger) I have moved on from that issue. How can we get anywhere with this discussion if we constantly go back to the same things?--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 14:34, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

I agree that bringing up the Bdow again is disruptive. Otherwise, though, the article would be improved by considering some of the other points. Alex Harvey (talk) 01:34, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

The only point I see worth discussing is the one regarding Grau's gallantry. I'm of the position that it should be mentioned, but in a way that relates to the conflict. Both him and Pratt played a big role in the war. Which other points do you think need to be considered?--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 02:46, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Let's see the question in a systematic way:

• 1.1 Issue 3: Repase references(unresolved)
• 1.2 Issue 24: Topater (unresolved)
• 1.3 Issue 36: Grau's gallantry (unresolved)
• 2.1 Issue 19: Secret treaty (unresolved) (Nonetheless, Chile, through its Minister Plenipotenciary Carlos Walker Martínez, knew of the treaty since 1874.)
• 2.3 Issue 25: Despite cooperation (unresolved)
• 2.4 Issue 26: and Bolivia imposed a 10 cent tax (unresolved)
• 2.5 Issue 27: On April 5, after Peru resisted both demands (unresolved)
• 2.6 Issue 28: After war (resolved)
• 2.7 Issue 29: Mutual Defense System 1 (unresolved) name was moved to "mutual defense pact"...
• 2.8 Issue 30: Mutual Defense System 2 (unresolved)
• 2.9 Issue 31: Mutual Defense System 3 (unresolved)
• 2.10 Issue 32: Mutual Defense System 4 (resolved)
• 2.11 Issue 33: Bolivian declaration of war (pending)
• 2.12 Issue 34: Peruvian mediation 1 (unresolved)
• 2.13 Issue 35: Peruvian mediation 2 (unresolved)

Now, let's decide wich one should be the first issue to resolve?. --Best regards, Keysanger (what?) 10:25, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Ian, please be so kindly and don't remove or change the {{unresolved}} tag without the agreement of the editor who put it in. Thanks in advance, --Best regards, Keysanger (what?) 10:40, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm starting to get the idea that you really don't have anything better to do. I am also going to conclude that all of your "issues" won't ever get resolved until we agree with whatever it is you want to write in the article. The concept of WP:Consensus is just a silly game, right?--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 14:27, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Don't think too much of me, (I am not so important as you fear or guess), think about Alex's words:

• There is a POV dispute,..., I don't think the POV issues were resolved to everyone's satisfaction Alex Harvey, at 05:52 on 21 March 2012 (UTC)

I would suggest we start with the case of Grau's cavallery. --Best regards, Keysanger (what?) 11:12, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

You are taking Alex's constructive suggestion and distorting it. Alex clearly wrote, "the article would be improved by considering some of the other points." Never did he write that all of your demands should be considered again for discussion. You clearly keep breaking WP:POINT despite being told various times by different editors not to do it. (1) If you really wanted to improve this article, you would focus on one point at a time instead of trying to discuss a series of random points simultaneously. (2) If you really wanted to improve this article, you would understand the concept of WP:CONSENSUS and stop repeating the same arguments over and over again. WP:GAMING the system to get your way across is not permitted. Regards.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 22:23, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

I proposed to focus "Graus gallantery". --Best regards, Keysanger (what?) 17:22, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Okay. Now what else do you want to discuss?--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 00:08, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

I would suggest to focus on the Peruvian mediation. Its flaws are appalling: biased, original research, weird wording, unreferenced. If you agree, I will present a proposal with a new wording according to the WP rules. Do you?. --Best regards, Keysanger (what?) 11:05, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

There are no flaws with the current paragraph. I will not write "agree" to anything you write until you present it here first. Also, please stop deleting the mention of Grau's rescuse of the Chilean sailors. Regards.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 23:12, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

In order to explain you the appalling flaws again, I am working a complete list of the 30 flaws (more?) out. Of course, we resolved some of them, 3 or 4. For now you can take a look to the Talk page archives 9, 10, 11 and 12. --Best regards, Keysanger (what?) 10:26, 11 April 2012 (UTC)