Talk:War of the Pacific/Archive 9

Archive 5

←

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

→

Archive 15

Controversial Points

Why they are controversial? we will explain it in this page, one by one. It will takes time but an open debate is necesary to get a neutral article.

1.- The 10 cents tax (quoting chilean authors arafael has explain why bolivian historians considere that the tax was perfectly legal)

2.- The bolivian declaration of war; the bolivian decree that stablished "a state of war" in the republic territory, after the chilean invasion, can be considerated a formal declaration of war? today we, (south american countrys) call it Estado de Sitio "siege state" in english, its use in special situations not only external wars, however this decree precept the actions. Basadre said that Daza wants to make the peace peruvian mediation faile.

3.-"...Chile the smallest country..." Population and territory extension are not determinate in modern wars, what about military capabilities? acording to an official invent dated in 1878 peruvians arsenals had 7.155 rifles (5.566 disponsable) (3.036 chassepots, 3.822 minies, 28 comblains, 29 martinis, 16 rampards, 108 wilson,etc) 866 carabines, 434 revolvers, 2.280 infantry/cavalry/artillery sabers

Acording to the chilean ministry of foreign affairs in april 1879 Chile had an army of 7.000 mens and 13.000 comblains rifles...

etc,etc,etc first begin with these 3, and the wooden ships of the navys? we can make and other table to compare them. Official primary sources will be ignore? i dont agree with that

"Consequences of the war"(NO NEUTRAL) from the read of this section the lector should understand that peruvians are "resentments", "always are predispotions to direct themselves against Chile" and "their honest desire to maintain neighborly relations is questionable" these can be debate, but what about the rise of chilean nationalism and superioty sentiments during and after the war? Gonzalo Bulnes famous chilean ninenteen century historian said "Lo que venció al Perú fue la superioridad de una raza y la superioridad de una historia" can be traduce as "which defeats Peru was the superioty of a race and the superioty of a history", during the ocupation of Tacna and Arica (1884-1929) many chileans newspaper said things like this "because it is undoubetdly preferable to be an chilean than peruvian, because has a cleaner and more glorius history, and its better to belong to the phalanx of the conquerors than that of the conquered, because chilean race is more virile, valiant, prouder, nobler and more enterprising than the peruvian race, which due to reasons of climate will always be enarvated..." the "inferiority" of the peruvian race was a frecuent topic in chilean propagandist(even in Books "Chilean Race" and "The twno races, chilean and peruvian" this has been signed in "Lines in the sand: nationalism and identity on the Peruvian-Chilean frontier" by William E. Skuban

.Rasdar2 (talk) 16:23, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

In a prior version of this article, I remember placing a series of sourced sentences in regards to Racism in Chile, and how it relates as a consequence to the War of the Pacific. Of course, since Keysanger had completely ownership of the article, he deleted all of that.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 17:47, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I'll remember that lines, they must be restored I'think, in fact, the entire article must be rewritten, the excessive quoting must be rationalized and obviously, the article must "neutralized". The article is not longer under control of Keysanger, is our duty now fix this disaster and give to the Wikipedian readers, a good, neutral, easy-to-read and useful article. Greetings--Cloudaoc (talk) 22:06, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Someone could find that version? Also invite Likeminas. Arafael (talk) 14:11, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Neutral Comment and Observation

I was asked to comment on the RFC as a neutral commentator by Keysanger to give full disclosure. I don't claim my comments are the result of an in depth examination of the issue and I'm not an expert on the history; though I do have some familiarity. Also I haven't worked or collaborated with Keysanger.

Coming from a neutral perspective there are partisan texts on both sides. Hence, it is difficult to produce a neutral text since both sides can produce a source to support their issue. I would suggest that rather sticking to sources from a particular side, you might consider using sources from a neutral 3rd party or both sides. It is also very easy to fall into the trap of giving undue prominence to certain material. You might also explore trying to find neutral language that doesn't favour either side - not an easy prospect I acknowledge. You also need to stop trying on both sides to paint the other as "wrong".

There are ownership issues on both sides as well; though I note primarily accusations are bandied at one particular party. Being honest there appears to be a group of editors ranged against one, who is an established contributor. The dispute over content is also needlessly being personalised by both sides. There is no right version. I'm going to suggest that you consider the mediation cabal as a means of establishing a collaborative working relationship.

My 2c worth, you may take it as you find it. I can try and act as a neutral referee if you like. I do have some Spanish but I'll freely admit its not the greatest. Justin talk 14:55, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Could we stablish pros and cons between working on actual version and a previous version? Arafael (talk) 17:33, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

"though I note primarily accusations are bandied at one particular party." These discussions have been going back and forth, and Keysanger (the "one particular party" I assume you refer to) is the one who got himself into this problem. Prior to this whole thing becoming such a big problem, User:Dentren had managed to bring in a somewhat peaceful solution to the problem by providing a chart of issues that were supposedly going to be addressed one by one. Among the people there were me, Dentren (who acted as a neutral compromiser), Arafael, Likeminas, and Keysanger. Everything was working fine until Keysanger decided to take the whole discussion under his charge, pushed out all the other editors, and took complete ownership of this article. What has happened now is that the "group of editors" have managed to break the ownership of Keysanger, and are now attempting to bring the article back into a more neutral perspective. Will this work? Probably not, but at least there's a better chance than with just one stubborn editor making all of the edits.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 15:06, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Actually I deliberately avoided making any accusation or identifying anyone. You say a "group of editors" have managed to break the ownership of Keysanger, to a neutral observer that appears to be saying we have decided to take over ownership of this article. Just a thought you may like to consider. Again there are ownership issues on both sides is what I observed and I hope you take this on face value.

I would also urge you to avoid needlessly personalising the content dispute, focus on content not contributors. When you personalise the issue you entrench opposition and the net results is a stubborn editor. Particularly when its directed by a group of editors against one person. Again a thought for you to consider. Justin talk 15:18, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Could we write pros and cons between working on actual version or previous version? Arafael (talk) 17:48, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

If you "deliberately avoided" seeing things as how they happened, then you're by no means understanding the issue at hand. You can try to hide the sun with your finger, but it will still be shining on to everyone. Moreover, your association of the word "breaking" with "ownership" shows another deep lack of understanding of the matter, and of the phrase itself. Furthermore, there is no current "ownership" problem from the side opposing Keysanger's ownership of the page, though that has a history of changing back-and-forth in this particular article. Perhaps you might also want to consider the concept that when a stubborn editor takes control of a controversial page, the result is a united opposition against said editor. Of course, these are just thoughts as well.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 21:57, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Is there any benefit in continuing to pursue recriminations about what has happened in the past? An eye for an eye, well, that just leave everyone blind. Making the dispute personal merely perpetuates the dispute. Justin talk 22:33, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

It's not about a continuation of what happened in the past, for indeed an eye for an eye will leave the whole world blind. The point of remembering and analyzing the events of the past is to prevent such events from taking place again in the near future (especially if the events will be repeated by the same person). If from the beginning a person is going to act blind to what happened, then they're just as useless as those who end up going blind by pursuing revenge. Keysanger acted wrong, and he was warned about his behavior a series of different times by a series of different users. Now, if you want to ignore Keysanger and all of the bad things he did, then you're opening the way for the wolf to return in sheep's clothing and for nobody to notice until it is once again too late.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 23:07, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

UNINDENT

If everyone is happy for me to act as neutral referee I'm happy to help. Could I start by asking if there is agreement. Then I would suggest that everyone lists the content issues with the article. Please focus on the content rather than individuals and keep the comments focused on content. OK? Justin talk 21:01, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Agree You have three Barnstars for colaboration in the Falkland/Malvinas islands articles, that's a good reference for me, but I'm still against the ban of use for primary sources. They should be inserted with care but not discarded per-se. Welcome and thanks for your interest. Greetings. --Cloudaoc (talk) 21:53, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Comment: If what you seek to do is repeat a failed system of presenting content disputes, then by no means am I willing to once again take a part of such worthless discussions. Nonetheless, perhaps the other users might enjoy trying to give it another chance. In any case, by this point I'm simply helping Arafael with grammar.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 22:05, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

MarshalN20, there is no need to repeat the previous mistakes, its our responsability to sustain a civilizated (and short) debate for some controversial points, not for the entire article, and your participation, dedication and knowledge is really necessary here, not all the issues must debated, the article must be a well-divided sequence of facts, dates and events, from both sides. All free of passion. I'll suggest than we must establish first which issues must be discussed. And for a fresh beginning, we can use an older version, free of the unmanageable and excessive citation and tendencies as possible. Greetings and I hope you can reconsider your position. --Cloudaoc (talk) 03:53, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, but I still think that it is best for me to no longer be as involved as before in the article. I'm not opposing Justin's suggestion, but I won't agree with it either. Perhaps from time to time I'll try to see if there's something that could be done. However, there are two points that I think are important for the mention of the article: The first is to once again bring back the information from World perspectives of the War of the Pacific and place it once more in this article. Keysanger deleted all of it for little to no reason, even though the information is really important. Secondly, I believe it's important to mention the process of "Chilenization" that Tacna, Arica, and Tarapaca faced when Chile took over the areas. This is one of the saddest parts of the aftermath of the war, and for some reason it has never been mentioned in this article.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 14:24, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, I understand your point, but your desicion is just what Keysanger wanted, as Likeminas and others, making them and you tired to bow against him and leave the article in his present state, his version and a complete disaster. I'll agree with you with the recovery of the information from World perspectives of the War of the Pacific and its addition to the article and the Chilenization of Tacna and Arica must be added as well. Is an important issue and part of the consecuences of the war. Greetings and keep in contact. --Cloudaoc (talk) 16:31, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Agree and with Cloudaoc too, primary sources must not be completely ignore. Greetings Rasdar2 (talk) 00:47, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Agree

• All content disputes were resolved in spanish version. Could we include it in pros and cons evaluation; a translation from spanish version. It has some of MarshalN20 points.
• I'm opposite to a "long" system of content disputes too. Therefore I've proposed an evaluation from actual version, previous version or translation from spanish version.
• Do you notice the name of article "War of the Pacific"?. A Pacific (disposed to peace or of a peaceful nature) in a War.
• Wikipedia do not exclude "primary sources": Our policy: Primary sources that have been reliably published may be used in Wikipedia...Deciding whether primary, secondary or tertiary sources are more suitable on any given occasion is a matter of common sense

Arafael (talk) 14:00, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Proposed Route to Resolving the Dispute

OK the way I propose that the dispute is to be resolved is to look for a neutral third party source that is acceptable to both sides. Ideally a source that discusses the origins of the war. Primarily I suggest we rely on secondary sources of this nature, I agree that we should not disregard primary sources, particularly for example where we require a citation for a particular aspect of the article. However, for the main part of the article we should look to secondary sources.

The reason I suggest this, is that many primary sources are written from the partisan view point of the author. For example a Chilean may see the Bolivian imposition of taxes as illegal, whereas the Bolivian side will see that fundamentally differently. That is a mere example, nothing more.

If the content disputes were resolved in es.wikipedia, then I agree we should look at that article. For now I think we should first agree an article structure.

Is that an acceptable proposal? Justin talk 15:37, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

I would support using for the most contentious issues (e.g. the tax, war declaration, and third countries involvement) secondary sources to begin with. I would also support the use of primary sources, as long as the proposed (or contested) text is discussed here first. The other proposal of translating the Spanish Version can be also a viable and temporary solution, but perhaps not the ideal one. For one, sources written in English should be preferred in the English Wikipedia as they're easier to be verified by the non-Spanish reader. In case there’s not an English source, a translation of a Spanish version could be used. But it would have to be done with a lot of care and ideally peer-reviewed to avoid any misinterpretation.

I think there are good English sources that can be used to start off.

• Chile and the War of the Pacific by William F. Sater
• Andean Tragedy by William F. Sater
• Latin America's Wars: The age of the caudillo, 1791-1899 by Robert L. Scheina
• The Ten Cents War by B.W.Farcau

These secondary sources are all written in a scholarly manner, comply well with WP:RSUE, WP:RS and the authors are not Chilean, Peruvian or Bolivian, so concerns of nationalistic bias can hardly be pin-pointed to them.

Finally, I would agree with somebody’s proposal of not making this discussion about a particular user. It's a moot point by now and it doesn’t really help to move things forward, but instead creates a non-friendly and un-collaborative environment. Regards, Likeminas (talk) 16:16, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
PS: I've Sandboxed an old version of this article in case some text and sources can be used. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Likeminas/Sandbox Likeminas (talk) 16:49, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

That's neat Likeminas. I think the article should once again seek to include the material on foreign nations. It's important to demonstrate how the United States was involved in the matter with Peru, and how Great Britain was involved in the matter with Chile. This is one of the part of the history that is generally ignored in the history of these nations, and I think that this Wiki article would greatly benefit from having this information.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 00:01, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Citation Standards

Well, before I go back into my status of mere viewer, I'd like to point out that there is still a deep issue concerning the citation standards in this article. I think that User:Fifelfoo did an excellent job in his RfC in order to help improve this article's citation structure; but User:Keysanger went into a mass deletion of sources and completely changed things to a kind of citation format that is really, at least by my standards, unacceptable. He even tried to trick Fifelfoo by telling him that he had done as he recommended, but the truth is still plainly there: The citation format in this article is terrible. Here are some recommendation points I'd like to provide:

• First, choose a common citation format (I'm not sure which, I'd suggest you vote on that).
• Second, fix all of the current citations in the article to this new citation format.
• Finally, from now on follow that same format throughout the article.

It really is bound to help out the article. I think one of the key problems is that Keysanger's earlier method was to quote directly the source inside the citation, and even still some little side-comments (explanations) of the source can be seen. These things are not necessary to be shown in the citation. One of the first rules of Wikipedia is to assume Good Faith, and thus it must be taken into good faith that the sources being listed mention the material being posted. If it is verified that a user has been using sources inappropiately (lying about their content), then that user should be inmediately reported. Next, providing explanations of the sources is really unecessary original research (nobody really cares about anybody else's opinion on the source; that's up for the reader to see).--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 23:55, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

The occupation of Lima

Greetings, I was checking the article and this paragraph:

After the battle there were fires and sackings in the towns of Chorrillos and Barranco, but over the wrongdoers there are one-sided information. Chilean authors incriminate demoralized Peruvian soldiers but Peruvian authors accuse drunken Chilean soldiers of the damages and crimes. Both versions must not be contradictory.

Is mainly sustained by the book of Sergio Villalobos, CHILE Y PERÚ, LA HISTORIA QUE NOS UNE Y NOS SEPARA 1535-1883, but this book was heavily questionated even by the own Chileans, for its excessive nationalism and contempt against Peru and Bolivia, an example is this review:

CHILE Y PERÚ, LA HISTORIA QUE NOS UNE Y NOS SEPARA 1535-1883, de Sergio Villalobos - Una sonrisa

Therefore, this source is not suitable to be an useful secondary source for this article, and the argument which blames Peruvian soldiers from part of the destruction of San Juan and Miraflores is based mainly on speculations of some Chilean authors, and many primary sources indicates than was the Chilean soldiers, nor the Peruvian ones, who commit the crimes involved in the destruction of the Limean towns. My sustain for this issue can be found in the archives of this talk page:

[Issue #35 About the destruction of San Juan and Miraflores]

Keysanger replys (without any sustain) than the Peruvian govermnent control over the towns cease to exist after the battle and because of that, the Peruvian soldiers lost control and destroys the towns who few hours before protect with their own lives. I'll proceed to rewrite this section and the entire article related to the occupation of Lima. Greetings --Cloudaoc (talk) 16:44, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Can you please supply location, publisher and date for the source? Fifelfoo (talk) 11:34, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Of course: Ahumada, Pascual; Guerra del Pacifico - Tomos V y VII, reprinted in Valparaiso, Chile in June 1982 by the editorial Andres Bello, the original dates from 1888. Greetings. --Cloudaoc (talk) 20:32, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

"Massive raids from demoralized Peruvian soldiers...destroyed several Peruvian towns and cities across the coastline."

wich is your source Keysenger? if you dont add one i will delete that sentence Rasdar2 (talk) 17:25, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Guys, let's keep the environment collaborative, not combative.

Resdar2 the source is Chile Y Peru, La Historia Que Nos Une Y Nos Divide by Sergio Villalobos. here's a discussion regarding that sentence.

And just to preempt a response in regards to that source, I will just say that a single critique of the book -weather positive or negative- is not a reason (at least per Wikipedia's standards) to discard it. Likeminas (talk) 01:25, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

You have a point Likeminas, but isn't enough to sustain Villalobos as a reliable source, the problem is than his book have several statements (do you read the entire book?) than disquialified it as a realiable source in many topics, like this one. Besides, Villalobos contradicts many other secondary sources, like Basadre (for an example) and above all, primary ones, than battle reports (Peruvian and Chilean ones), testimonies, etc. That single critique is just an example, there are many others (i'll read a couple of them, all quite negative), you can find them online. I'm not denying the fact than exists bands of Peruvian looters during the war (a few and not very destructive as was the Chilean army), but the article implies than they were the only ones, and that's the real problem. The Chilean Army starts a systematic destruction of the Peruvian infrastructure during the war and the years of occupation, besides the crimes of lesa-humanidad, but that is other topic. The Peruvian soldiers wasn´t responsible for the destruction of ANY city or Peruvian town, that's an exaggeration not recorded as such in any reliable source. Greetings.--Cloudaoc (talk) 03:54, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

==>What exactly disqualifies Villalobos as a reliable source? As far as I know, the man is a professor at the University of Chile, one of the most prominent scholars of contemporary Chilean historiography and winner of the national history prize. [1] I won’t even go into debating the “reviews” or “critiques” that certain websites give him. I’ve seen good and bad “reviews” of that book. In any case, website reviews are not an academic measurementm of reliability.

I’m also aware that historical accounts from Peru, Bolivia and Chile don’t necessarily agree with each other and for that reason not all will have the same analysis and conclusion of an event.

I would agree on improving the statement (“...demoralized Peruvian soldiers destroyed cities...”) as it is not very accurate. I did read the book and Villalobos doesn’t claim Peruvians destroyed cities, he says that under the chaos of the initial Lima campaign, soldiers of the Peruvian army, saw an opportunity to also take part in the sacking of valuable objects. (See also: : Charles de Varigny, "La Guerra del Pacifico", Imprenta Cervantes, Moneda 1170, Santiago de Chile, 1922, page XVIII rendía incondicionalmente. La soldadesca [peruana] desmoralizada y no desarmada saqueaba la ciudad en la noche del 16, el incendio la alumbraba siniestramente y el espanto reinaba en toda ella.

I know I posted this before, but please, read Wikipedia’s guideline on reliable sources regarding History: On many topics, there are different interpretive schools which use the same documents and facts but use different frameworks and come to different conclusions. So having contradictory accounts of a historical event, especially a war, is not very unusual. WP:NPOV in this cases requires, we present them all in an impartial way.

I proposed a re-writing of that paragraph during a previous discussion, so let me re-post it to see if we can reach a consensus with that one, or work it out from there.

However, In the view of Chilean historian Sergio Villalobos some of the looting was also carried out by Peruvians who saw under the chaos of the occupation an opportunity to acquire valuable objects. On the other hand, the Peruvian historiography has no such accounts and reaffirms that the looting was done solely by Chilean forces.

Let’s see what others say about this. Does it improve it? If not, what and how it can be improved?Likeminas (talk) 15:08, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

About disorders in January 1881. Consider this (from chilean sources) - Lima is 50km from Chorrillos.

There were excesses in Chorrillos by Chilean soldiers.

There were excesses in Lima by Peruvian soldiers.

There were excesses in Lima by Chilean soldiers.

In Chorrillos, chilean soldiers sacked the town because peruvian soldiers firing from houses. Chilean soldiers found vineyards, got drunk and burned the town.

In Lima, peruvian soldiers sacked chinese stores, chinese houses and others europeans who defended chinese; because chinese people were chilean army collaborators.

In Lima, chilean soldiers sacked the Library.

About chilean excesses you could read: Justo Abel Rosales, chilean "Mi campaña al Perú". [2] and Hipólito Gutierrez, chilean "Crónica de un soldado de la Guerra del Pacífico" [3] and Alfredo Jocelyn Holt [4]

About peruvian excesses you could read. [5] "Chile y China: inmigración y relaciones bilaterales (1845-1970) by Diego Lin Chou".

About chilean excesses in Lima: Marcelo Mendoza, [6]

About Sergio Villalobos, you could read chilean opinions about him (racist) [7] and (nationalist) [8]

I will rewrite first paragraphs in order to reach NPOV [9].

Arafael (talk) 19:30, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Please post it here before, so we can build consensus first.

And re-read my mention on Villalobos above I think I was sufficiently clear on that, so there's no need for me to repeat myself.

In regards to this "source" you present Arafael, I'm afraid it is not good. First, it's a magazine note about a documentary, which hardly can be used in a scholarly manner. Second it says that Villalobos denies that Chilean soldiers sacked Lima, which is false,

See page 185.

The other "source" that can be problematic is Mi campaña al Perú since it seems to be a "primary" source and done in a narrative manner. I wouldn't completely discard it, but I'd be careful when citing it. And much less I would dare to use it as a strong support for anything. Likeminas (talk) 20:38, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Read: http://www.icarito.cl/medio/articulo/0,0,38039290_101111578_210495354,00.html by Jocelyn-Holt. Do not forget Hipólito Gutierrez.

In Chorrillos, after the battle, were civilians, and wounded soldiers defending the town. Upon entering the Chilean soldiers were fighting house to house with the Peruvians, burning homes to get them out. Among the houses were vineyards, that Chilean soldiers pillaged drunk, so all control was lost. There were scuffles and assassinations among Chileans themselves fighting for food and liquor. All this led to the looting, killings of peruvian civilians. In the city of Lima were peruvian soldiers, with them blacks, mulatto and bandits, who commited murders and looting mainly against Chinese people and stores. These excesses were due to the Chinese coolies served as porters on the Chilean army, also use the absence of order in the city. Attacks also took place against European merchants because they refused to accept Peruvians money.

Arafael (talk) 21:29, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

I didn't forget it about Gutierrez or Jocelyn-Holt, they're both good sources. Yet neither one of them can be considered more or less reliable than Villalobos. Please read the link I posted above On many topics, there are different interpretive schools which use the same documents and facts but use different frameworks and come to different conclusions.

In regards to the coolies, here's what I found:

Most of the Chinese provided only logistical support, but some went into battle against the Peruvian troops, often wearing masks or painting their faces. On the other hand, Chinese merchants in Lima calculated that supporting the Peruvians was in their long-term interest and gathered a contribution to the public war fund second only to that offered by the bankers.'

They also formed a militia to help protect the city, as well as benevolent societies to protect their own interests, but this failed to stop the massacre of four hundred Chinese by Peruvian troops in the days immediately before the entry of the Chilean troops.

Chinese migrant networks and cultural change: Perú, Chicago, Hawaii, 1900-1936 By Adam McKeown (page 141)

I also read somewhere (I have yet to find that source) that the coolies collaborated with the Chilean army as appreciation for being liberated from Serfdom. So since a lot of detail is being proposed in that sentence maybe should include that also.

Likeminas (talk) 23:40, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Here's more on the Looting:

Looting had already begun in parts of the capital on the night of the 15th, but rioting and burning spread throughout the city on the 16th and well into the night. The municipal police had been conscripted into the army and were long gone, and any army troops still in uniform were streaming into the mountains to the east to carry on the war. It was not until the morning of the 17th of January that Rufino Torrico, the mayor of Lima, was able to appeal to the foreign diplomatic community to form an “urban guard” of their own nationals, mostly sailors and marines from the warships off Callao, to patrol the city and impose some kind of order, disarming deserters and rioters, killing about two hundred of them in Lima and another 150 in Callao in the process. The first Chilean troops entered the city at 1700 hours that day (17th of January)

The Ten Cents War: Chile, Peru, and Bolivia in the War of the Pacific, 1879-1884 By Bruce W. Farcau (page 169)

What does this mean?

1)My first proposal was perhaps too harsh on the Chilean atrocities and too lenient on the Peruvian ones.

2)Bruce W. Farcau is not Chilean, so not only the Chilean the historiography accounts for riots, looting and destruction of Lima.

3)Peruvians started rioting and looting at least 2 days before the first Chilean troops entered Lima.

4)The slaughtering of these people (whether civilians or not) began before the Chilean army entered Lima.

I suggest we add this information into the article as well. Likeminas (talk) 00:34, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Response:

0)Chorrillos, Barranco and Lima (city) are three towns in Lima (province)

1)Beware, separate Chorrillos/Barranco from Lima.

2)Farcau describes the excesses with the Chinese people. (described by primary sources)

3)Lima, was not destroyed. Only chinese houses and Europeans stores. (by peruvians)

4)Then the foreign guard was formed by Torrico.

5)Chorrillos and Barranco were destroyed by chileans.

6)Library from Lima was sacked by chileans.

7)About Chinese collaboration in chilean army read: "Mi campaña al Perú"

Please review proposals in main article about first paragraphs.

Arafael (talk) 14:03, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

I have not much interest in circular debating, so here's another proposal that is supported by a secondary sources;

Chaos already reined in Lima before the arrival of the first Chilean troops. Looting had already begun in parts of the capital on the night of the 15th, but rioting and burning spread throughout the city on the 16th and well into the night. It was not until the morning of the 17th of January that Rufino Torrico, the mayor of Lima, was able to control the situation by appealing to the foreign diplomats to lend troops from foreign warships to patrol the city and impose some kind of order, disarming deserters and rioters, and in the process killing about two hundred of them in Lima and another 150 in Callao. It was during that same day at around 17:00 that Chilean troops entered Lima. Upon entering the city, Chilean soldiers were fighting house to house with the Peruvians, in some instances burning homes to get them out. Among the houses were vineyards, which Chilean soldiers pillaged. There were drunken scuffles and assassinations among Chileans themselves fighting for food and liquor. All this led to the looting, and killings of Peruvian civilians.

I wish others would give their opinions also, because achieving consensus in this article seem like a never-ending story. Likeminas (talk) 14:28, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Agree Mostly, its a very balanced version of the facts, but the word "chaos" is a little exaggerated, because the rioting was focused in some parts of the city, not in the entire capital, besides; the attacks against the foreign citizens of the Limean towns must be added, like the assesination of the Italian firefighters in Chorrillos, murdered under the accussation of colaboration with the Peruvian Army, among others. I'll start this paragraph with a line like this one:

The riots starts in Lima before...

Good work Likeminas, its a good start for this section, than could be improved in the future. Greetings and finally, we're going forward. The contributions of Arafael are very valuable indeed, and must be added as well. Greetings again.--Cloudaoc (talk) 20:08, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

In Chorrillos, after the battle, Chilean soldiers were fighting house to house with the Peruvians, in some instances burning homes to get them out. Among the houses were vineyards, which Chilean soldiers pillaged. There were drunken scuffles and assassinations among Chileans themselves fighting for food and liquor. All this led to the looting, and killings of Peruvian civilians. In Lima were peruvian soldiers dissolved, with them bandits, who commited murders and looting mainly against Chinese people, then Rufino Torrico, the mayor of Lima, control the situation by appealing to the foreign diplomats to lend troops from foreign warships to patrol the city and impose some kind of order, disarming soldiers and rioters

Arafael (talk) 14:45, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

An explanation, Mollendo, Chorrillos, Barranco and Miraflores were sacked and burned by chilean dispersed soldiers(acording to some chileans authors in Chorrillos peruvians desmoralized soldiers took part too), Lima art and literaty treasures were sacked by orders of chilean occupation authorities(see Scheina's book page 388), it was an organizaded pillage very diferent from the others, after the battle of miraflores some peruvian soldiers and bandits began to sack and kill chinesse people (called colies) and their stores, the foreign urban guard restore the order after the entrance of chilean troops. The only controversial point is Chorrillos. There wasnt "massive peruvian raids" as keysenger said. Rasdar2 (talk) 17:35, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Keysenger quotes on Charles de Varigny only refers to Lima not to Chorrillos, Barranco and Miraflores as he said in the article.Rasdar2 (talk) 18:07, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to change these sentence to "as direct consequence of war several peruvian towns were bombed, sacked and destroyed" Rasdar2 (talk) 16:28, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Belligerents military strength comparison

I'm just added this section, using secondary sources only, although in my opinion them can be support by "primary sources". If someome (maybe you Keysanger) dont agree with something of the section, just send me a message and i will be glad to discuis and debate it. Greetings Rasdar2 (talk) 16:56, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Regarding Consequences of the War

As many of you know, the consequences of the War of the Pacific are really more of a "touchy" (delicate) subject than the war itself. Much of the content disputes of the article actually have its roots from the consequences of the war, rather than from the war itself. Now, I say this because I doubt that any of you participated in the War of the Pacific; but I'm sure that many of the contributors have been affected by the consequences of the war. I recommend to all of you that when dealing with this particular "Consequences of the War" section to do it with the best of intentions at heart and to only present factual information from truly reliable sourced material. In an earlier version of the article, I recall that it mentioned that "Peru and Bolivia had deep scars" left as a result of the war, but the truth of the matter is that all nations got deep consequences out of it. So, please avoid writing that section with any particular intention to insult or favor any of the nations; and those who may feel insulted by the material in there please remember to keep WP:GF (good faith) in mind. If any of you want to challenge the material there, challenge it with better sources and not by deleting sourced material.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 02:40, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

"University for Peace" Statement

On the section of the "aftermath" of Peru, there is a source used from the University for Peace. In the article, the statement is directly attributed to the UoP, but at the bottom of the source there is this disclaimer from the UoP (You have to scroll down to the bottom of the web and look at the letters in small print, which IMO is quite comical since it reminds me of those cartoons where the small print is always secret and barely anybody can see due to its bad meaning): "Please note that all opinions expressed in the Peace and Conflict Monitor are those of the author only and do not represent the official position of the University for Peace."

Therefore, based on that, the statement from the source cannot be attributed to the University for Peace. Rather, its author is a certain person named "Rafael Velasquez." At the bottom of the reference there is also an informal note on Velasquez, which reads: "Rafael holds a MA in International Peace Studies from the United Nations University for Peace. He currently works in the area of communication for an International Organization and as consultant in the area of African Conflict Management. He may be reached at rvelasquez@alumni.upeace.org." The section should be edited appropiately based on these things. Best regards.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 17:39, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

In my view it might be better to add an attribution than to scrap it altogether. Something along the lines of

Rafael Velasquez, a contributor for the University for Peace, writes......

should make it clear that this is an statement of opinion. Likeminas (talk) 20:12, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

That's an improvement.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 22:54, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Why are you deleting it claim it is unsourced???? Likeminas (talk) 23:54, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I see what this means now. Actually it is not unsourced, it's within the same report. Anyway, I don't mind leaving it out. Likeminas (talk) 00:03, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

lol. They're basically stating the same thing (in regards to Peru's government), but the problem is that the statement I deleted is too direct and really needs quite a bunch of other sources to back up. By "direct" I mean that it's no longer speaking of the government, which technically includes the politicians, but rather it is targeting out a specific group of people (the politicians...which I really don't care for much...but it is still too direct for one source to back up). Therefore, it is quite an exceptional claim, and according to the WP rules such an exceptional claim requires exceptional sources (more than one reliable source). The longer statement included of Velasquez is much better at describing the whole picture.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 01:43, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Proposal: Improved Introduction

I would like to propose the following for an introduction:

The War of the Pacific (Spanish: Guerra del Pacífico) was a South American conflict that took place from 1879-1884 in which the forces of Chile fought against a defensive alliance of Bolivia and Peru. Also known as the "Saltpeter War," the war arose from disputes over the control of territory that contained substantial mineral-rich deposits. The exact start of the war is a matter of dispute among historians, with some attributing the Bolivian presidential decree of Hilarion Daza as a declaration of war and others attributing Chile as the first nation to officially declare war. Although the conflict was originally a dispute between Chile and Bolivia over a 10 cents tax on the Antofagasta Nitrate & Railway Company, Peru got first involved in the matter as a mediator and, as a result of the Chilean invasion of the Bolivian port city of Antofagasta, Bolivia called upon a secret defensive alliance, which some historians consider offensive and aimed at Chile, that binded Peru to Bolivia in the case of foreign invasion of either one of the nation's territories.

The resulting five year war took place over a variety of terrain, beginning in the Atacama Desert of Bolivia and, later, as the Chilean forces advanced further north, into the deserts and mountainous regions of Peru. The first battle of the war, the Battle of Topáter, in which Chilean troops faced a defending force of Bolivian soldiers and civilians, took place before any declaration of war had been made by either side. However, once war had been declared, for most of the first year there was a focus on the Naval Campaign due to the strategic advantage of holding control of the seas in order to provide naval assistance to the land forces which would be having to battle in the Atacama desert, the world's driest desert. Even though the Peruvian Navy met with initial success, the naval campaign was eventually won by the Chilean Navy upon the capture of the Peruvian flagship monitor Huáscar and the death of Peru's prominent admiral Miguel Grau, known by all sides of the conflict as the "Knight of the Seas" due to his chivalry. Afterwards, the Land Campaign would result in a string of victories for the Chilean Army over the badly equipped and poorly trained troops of the Bolivian and Peruvian armies, which resulted in the complete defeat of Bolivia in the Battle of Tacna of May 26, 1880, and the annihilation of the Peruvian regular army after the Battle of Arica in June 7 of the same year. The land campaign reached its climax in 1881, with the Chilean occupation of Lima.

The remaining three years of the conflict turned into a guerrilla war between a union of what was left of the Peruvian army and some irregular troops under the command of General Andrés Avelino Cáceres, and the military forces of Chile with their base in Lima under the command of Admiral Patricio Lynch. The ensuing conflict would be known as the Campaign of the 'Breña (or Sierra, both which make reference to the Andes's rough terrain), and would be fairly successful as a resistance movement but inneffective in changing the course of the war. Eventually, after the defeat of Cáceres in the Battle of Huamachuco, Chile and Peru managed to reach a diplomatic solution on October 20, 1883, with the signing of the Treaty of Ancon (The treaty became effective in 1884). Bolivia and Chile would eventually also sign a separate peace treaty in 1884.

The conclusion of the conflict left deep scars on all sides involved, with much modern political conflict among these neighboring nations generally referring back to this war. Ultimately, the peace treaty led to the Chilean acquisition of the Peruvian territories of department of Tarapaca and province of Arica, as well as the disputed Bolivian department of Litoral, leaving Bolivia as a landlocked country.

So, what do you think?

I would have liked to expand a bit on the "plebsicite" of Arica and Tacna (which is itself quite a controversial topic), but did not mention it in order to prevent conflicts among editors.

Also, I have a certain lack of knowledge in regards to the prominent Chilean commanders during the war (only Lynch is well-known to me). I thought about mentioning Arturo Prat somehow, but decided against it since his participation in the war is really quite minimal and his death is really, well, kind of irrelevant for a summary (though he died in a heroic way, I think everyone here has to admit that his death was really silly). Similarly, I excluded the mention of Francisco Bolognesi (Bolognesi, Grau, and Caceres are Peru's best known commanders in the war; at least for Peruvians) because it was just as irrelevant and silly (though heroic as well; I wouldn't jump into an enemy ship like Prat, and I wouldn't try to take a stand if I know I'm going to get massacred like Bolognesi...but that's mainly because I consider those decisions irrational and stupid, but heroic nonetheless) as that of Prat. So, if anybody is willing to add perhaps the prominent commander of Chile that led the land campaign of the Atacama, that would be nice.

Like I've said before, I'm not trying to favor any particular side (or, at least that's not my intention) in the summary. I think it's definately an improvement from what is currently in the article, but just as in all Wiki articles it is subject to error and further improvement. Best regards.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 19:19, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Marshall, I support your good intentions, nonetheless, in my opinion a short and concise lead is superior to a long and somewhat convoluted one. That said, I’d leave the lead alone, and instead would focus on other areas that might need work. Likeminas (talk) 20:23, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, it's just a proposal. Like I said before, I don't like the state of the current article, and I feel that editing it too much has a tendency to have pointless results. However, the introduction, which is supposed to be a summary of the most relevant points included in the main body of the article, is generally what people read or "take" from Wikipedia before they go on to do other things (Unless they really are interested in the article). But, once again, it's just a proposal.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 22:59, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Correct date of War of the Pacific, 1879-1883

The article lists the dates as 1879-1884. But my understanding is that the war ended in October 1883 with the signing of the treaty. (that's also the date in the Wikipedia Spanish entry on the war) 2.38.107.109 (talk) 17:26, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

The war between Chile and Peru ended in 1883. The war between Chile and Bolivia ended in 1884. The Peru-Bolivia alliance came to an end in 1880 following the Battle of Tacna. So, the Spanish wiki has it wrong. The WotP was between Chile, Bolivia, and Peru. The war cannot be considered over until the truce of 1884.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 01:39, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Maps are wrong

Although some parts of the current andean territory of Argentina were nominally Bolivian before the war, the maps on the infobox and the main body of the text go far beyond that, incluiding vast parts of Argentine territory that were not Bolivian, such as the cities of Jujuy and Salta and their territories of influence. BTW, some of these were well-defined borders after Tarija chose to be part of Bolivia. I think these maps have to be mended. Salut, --IANVS (talk) 21:30, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

France?

No mention of France's observation mission? How about of this figure involved: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abel-Nicolas_Bergasse_Dupetit_Thouars. His role is understood in Peru to have prevented excesses by the Chilean army after besting Peru's defenders and moving into Lima. Just curious. Rafajs77 (talk) 05:41, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

International intervention in the War of the Pacific is present but subtle. It was attempted (on my part) to include many of these international views on the conflict, but other users used it to include their original research; this is why much of this information no longer appears on the article.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 22:12, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

• Thanks Marshal, I appreciate the response. It makes sense that it would open up to original research, since there is so little written about it. Even my question is premised on only observation (there are statues, parks, streets and institutes named for the guy in Lima). Rafajs77 (talk) 00:56, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Issue 1: offensive/defensive secrwet Alliance

Unresolved

Despite an agreement Talk:War of the Pacific/Archive 7#Mediation of defensive/offensive issue. the current article [10] insists to presume a defensive alliance: 'The forces of Chile fought a defensive alliance of Bolivia and Peru.. That is a clear violation of the NPOV of the Wikipedia rules. --Keysanger (what?) 10:48, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

I've reviewed the whole introductory section and no "extreme nationalistic POV" exists. The section was completely re-made by the team of editors in the Guild of copy-editors. The sentence which you cite, and the section as a whole, avoids using any specific national POV. Unless you have any other concerns, please remember to remove the NPOV tag.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 15:31, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Did you read also what you agreed on Sounds good to me. Thank you Gigs.--$%MarshalN20%$ (talk) 14:15, 17 August 2009 (UTC)?. --Keysanger (what?) 16:52, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

If you really do feel that the introductory section is so "extremely nationalistic", then I suggest you discuss it in the NPOV noticeboard. Nonetheless, I once again tell you that nothing in the introductory section is either "extreme" or "nationalistic"; and you really would be wasting your time.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 18:10, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

I repeat for you the agreement:

• The treaty was officially titled defensive.
• The treaty was viewed by Chile as a menace (offensive to it).
• Professional opinion is split on whether the alliance was solely defensive or whether it was offensive and defensive.

There is no defensive alliance, there is a so-called defensive alliance that was, according to Chile, one of the reasons of the war and WP has to express that Professional opinion is split on whether the alliance was solely defensive or whether it was offensive and defensive. Best regards, --Keysanger (what?) 18:57, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Go to the NPOV noticeboard if you have an issue with the introductory section. The "agreement" you write about applies to a discussion held over the "crisis" section, which to my understanding remains untouched since the last editions and explains the perspectives of the nations involved.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 20:01, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Keysanger, read carefully what are you saying: "there is a so-called defensive alliance that was, according to Chile", that's a Chilean POV sir, why the Chilean-version of the facts is better than Peruvian and Bolivian version? In fact, the text of the treaty which form the alliance didn't do not mention the Chilean nation as a subject or reason of the alliance. The text is clear sir, your interpretation is not relevant for the article. Greetings.Cloudaoc (talk) 20:09, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Changing "a defensive alliance" to "an alliance" displays a NPOV. What one side views as defensive may be interpreted as offensive to the other. The treaty between Bolivia and Peru was also "secretive" and that could be added as well, but for sake of maintaining a neutral context, labeling it just an alliance is appropriate. Selecciones de la Vida (talk) 20:22, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Everyone, just take a minute to think before anything gets out of hand.

• First of all, if any of you really want to contest the current introductory section, I have already recommended plenty of times for you to use the NPOV noticeboard. I have also stated that it's going to be a waste of time, but it's up to you if you really want to ultimately resort to it.
• Second, the introductory section is nothing more than a summary of the whole article.
• Third, regarding the issue with the wording, it's not a matter of presenting a specific POV. In the "Crisis" section it is explained that Chile viewed the alliance as offensive, and declared war upon the Peruvian acknowledgement of its existence. The summary simply reflects the obvious: The Peru-Bolivia document was a mutual defense treaty, called upon by Bolivia upon the Chilean invasion of Antofagasta, and activated by Peru after the Chilean declaration of war. Regardless of any POV, the events which took place all conclude that the alliance was defensive; hence the summary including the term "a defensive alliance".
• Fourth, as suggested, it would certainly be appropiate to add: "Bolivia activated its secret mutual defense treaty with Peru."

There is nothing wrong about either of these things, nothing "extremely nationalistic" (which is really an exaggeration and quite an aggressive title for this section). Best of wishes.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 21:58, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

I took some time to edit the first paragraph. What do you think?

The War of the Pacific (Spanish: Guerra del Pacífico) took place in western South America from 1879 through 1883. The forces of Chile fought a defensive alliance of Bolivia and Peru. The conflict is also known as the "Saltpeter War", as disputes over mineral-rich territory were the war's prime cause. The conflict originated in a dispute between Chile and Bolivia over a 10 cent tax on the Antofagasta Nitrate & Railway Company, but Bolivia and Chile's controversy over ownership of Atacama preceded and laid foundations for the conflict. Peru entered the affair in 1879, initially attempting to mediate the dispute. When Chile invaded the Bolivian port city of Antofagasta on February 14, 1879, Bolivia sought the activation of a secret mutual defense treaty with Peru. After learning of the treaty's existence, Chile declared war on both countries on April 5, 1879, and the following day Peru activated the alliance.

The last sentence seems to be a nice summary of Chile's reaction to the treaty.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 22:23, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

I posted an arbitration request against user MarshalN20 because of his edits in the article. Best regrads, --Keysanger (what?) 15:11, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Alright, good luck with that.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 16:39, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

The discussion of the issue is in Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard#War_of_the_Pacific and will continue as soon as the "Bolivian declaration of war" is finished. --Keysanger (what?) 09:23, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

My two cents

I have noticed this discussion, and thought of some things about it.

First of all, the context. Bolivia and Peru had wrote a treaty of mutual defense, that's a fact. With "defense" understood in its technical meaning: if a third country would declare war to any of the countries in the treaty, the others would join against it. There are more facts, such as that the treaty was secret, that Chile was not invited to join it (Argentina was, but did not join it). To say that this means that the treaty was actually for Bolivia and Chile to unite against Chile is an opinion; but to say that is opinion was held by most Chileans and encouraged the hostilities in Chile is a fact (as it is an opinion attributed to those holding it). More or less, that's the context, the way things took place. The NPOV is broken if we try to settle who was fighting the "Just War". In any case, let's remember that the aggresor is not who declares war first, but who begins the hostilities first, and military hostilities may begin without a declaration of war (and even worse, war may be "declared" when it's already taking place).

Second, there's a point we should consider about some of the sources cited earlier: many authors say things in "summary style", depending on the scope of the book (a book specifically about the War of the Pacific is a better source than a book about latin american history as a whole). An author that considers the twisted scenario, checks the information, and concludes "the aggresor was X because..." (whenever X is Chile, Peru or Bolivia) is one thing, an author making a trivial mention about the beginng of the war is another. We should dismiss authors making trivial passing-by mentions, and work with those who acknowledge the existence of this dispute and explains their reasons for endorsing one or other side. Or, better yet, an authors that acknowledges the dispute and stands aside it, explaining something like "Chilean authors X and Y say (A), Peruvian author Z says (B), and Bolivian author XY considers (C)". Consider that we are not talking about history anymore, but about historiography.

Finally, on a more technical issue, we do not use many different tags in an article if they are all for basically the same problem, such as POV and UNDUE, we use only the most specific one. Even more: if the problem is not at the whole article, but just at a specific sentence or sentences, then we should remove the tag from the top of the article and use {{Undue-inline}} instead. Cambalachero (talk) 02:49, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

"an author making a trivial mention about the beginng of the war is another. We should dismiss authors making trivial passing-by mentions, and work with those who acknowledge the existence of this dispute and explains their reasons for endorsing one or other side"

I agree with Cambalachero's opinion (particularly the sentence above). However, I think that Alex has made a good proposal which avoids any in-depth discussion (well, at least in the article, but the footnote will hold more on it). Whether that's good or bad, not sure but I assume it's good.

• Regarding the start of the war, I have provided 28 sources which all state Chile began the war with their invasion of Antofagasta. Unless anyone wants to contradict this overwhelming point, that is how it should be presented in the article. As Cambalachero states, "the aggresor is not who declares war first, but who begins the hostilities first".

Finally, I don't think it's relevant at all to mention anything about Bolivia declaring war (or not declaring war) in the LEAD. It did not affect anything on the course of events which followed. Chile declared war on Peru and Bolivia on the basis that they had formed a "secret offensive alliance", and Peru declared war based on Chile's declaration.

Thank you for expressing your suggestions Cambalachero. I hope you continue providing your opinion on the discussion. Best of wishes.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 14:45, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

I completelly agree with you Cambalachero, there is a patron in the use of sources with trivial information (like Globalsecurity.com in this case) in almost all the articles about the Salpeter War, and in almost all the articles (and its sections) about this topic are made with two or more version of the same fact, making almost useless as an information source (because as you say, the article becomes historiographic, not longer historic), there is also an tendency to discard the primary sources, like battle reports, treaties, declarations, etc. using as an excuse the Wikipedia policy about them. I'll hope than we can read more "cents" from you in this and other articles. Greetings.Cloudaoc (talk) 14:48, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Regarding the primary sources, the strange part is that Peruvian/Bolivian primary sources have been generally discarded in past discussions (Note: Not with Alex Harvey, who has a been an excellent help so far), but the article is heavily referenced by Gonzalo Bulnes (1851-1936), Chilean "historian" and racist nationalist who wrote: "What defeated Peru was the superiority of a race and of a history." He is one of the people that modern Chilean historians, such as Lutz, claim distort Chilean history. A similar situation happens with Diego Barros Arana (1830-1907). Why this article cites them so much, especially when Keysanger is so quick to scream "Primary Source" upon Peruvian/Bolivian sources, is beyond my understanding.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 15:02, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Exactly MarshallN20, another Chilean historian questioned even in Chile is Sergio Villalobos, his books are practically an apology to the Chilean view of the war, and are full with distorted data and references, but is used in articles like the Ocupattion of Lima, which practically says than Peruvian looters are the major responsables for the ransack of the National Library, public and private buildings, etc. Another example of this is the article about the battle of Iquique is in fact a copy-paste from the Chilean Navy website version of the battle translated to english, and is almost free of Peruvian sources. And nobody says there "There is a POV here!"...About the reason of why the articles about the war relies so much in Chilean sources is clear to me, but will not be appropiate to say, according with Wikipedia policies. Greetings.Cloudaoc (talk) 15:43, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, the best solution would be to check all of those sources and find if secondary sources support their analysis. Also, if the Battle of Iquique is indeed a copy-paste of a website, then you have every right to delete all of the copy-paste information as Wikipedia has a strict copyright policy (everyone can copy Wikipedia, but Wikipedia can't copy the work of anyone else). Best regards.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 21:32, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Issue 1: offensive/defensive secret Alliance

Unresolved

Despite an agreement Talk:War of the Pacific/Archive 7#Mediation of defensive/offensive issue. the current article [11] insists to presume a defensive alliance: 'The forces of Chile fought a defensive alliance of Bolivia and Peru.. That is a clear violation of the NPOV of the Wikipedia rules. --Keysanger (what?) 10:48, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

I've reviewed the whole introductory section and no "extreme nationalistic POV" exists. The section was completely re-made by the team of editors in the Guild of copy-editors. The sentence which you cite, and the section as a whole, avoids using any specific national POV. Unless you have any other concerns, please remember to remove the NPOV tag.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 15:31, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Did you read also what you agreed on Sounds good to me. Thank you Gigs.--$%MarshalN20%$ (talk) 14:15, 17 August 2009 (UTC)?. --Keysanger (what?) 16:52, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

If you really do feel that the introductory section is so "extremely nationalistic", then I suggest you discuss it in the NPOV noticeboard. Nonetheless, I once again tell you that nothing in the introductory section is either "extreme" or "nationalistic"; and you really would be wasting your time.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 18:10, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

I repeat for you the agreement:

• The treaty was officially titled defensive.
• The treaty was viewed by Chile as a menace (offensive to it).
• Professional opinion is split on whether the alliance was solely defensive or whether it was offensive and defensive.

There is no defensive alliance, there is a so-called defensive alliance that was, according to Chile, one of the reasons of the war and WP has to express that Professional opinion is split on whether the alliance was solely defensive or whether it was offensive and defensive. Best regards, --Keysanger (what?) 18:57, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Go to the NPOV noticeboard if you have an issue with the introductory section. The "agreement" you write about applies to a discussion held over the "crisis" section, which to my understanding remains untouched since the last editions and explains the perspectives of the nations involved.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 20:01, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Keysanger, read carefully what are you saying: "there is a so-called defensive alliance that was, according to Chile", that's a Chilean POV sir, why the Chilean-version of the facts is better than Peruvian and Bolivian version? In fact, the text of the treaty which form the alliance didn't do not mention the Chilean nation as a subject or reason of the alliance. The text is clear sir, your interpretation is not relevant for the article. Greetings.Cloudaoc (talk) 20:09, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Changing "a defensive alliance" to "an alliance" displays a NPOV. What one side views as defensive may be interpreted as offensive to the other. The treaty between Bolivia and Peru was also "secretive" and that could be added as well, but for sake of maintaining a neutral context, labeling it just an alliance is appropriate. Selecciones de la Vida (talk) 20:22, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Everyone, just take a minute to think before anything gets out of hand.

• First of all, if any of you really want to contest the current introductory section, I have already recommended plenty of times for you to use the NPOV noticeboard. I have also stated that it's going to be a waste of time, but it's up to you if you really want to ultimately resort to it.
• Second, the introductory section is nothing more than a summary of the whole article.
• Third, regarding the issue with the wording, it's not a matter of presenting a specific POV. In the "Crisis" section it is explained that Chile viewed the alliance as offensive, and declared war upon the Peruvian acknowledgement of its existence. The summary simply reflects the obvious: The Peru-Bolivia document was a mutual defense treaty, called upon by Bolivia upon the Chilean invasion of Antofagasta, and activated by Peru after the Chilean declaration of war. Regardless of any POV, the events which took place all conclude that the alliance was defensive; hence the summary including the term "a defensive alliance".
• Fourth, as suggested, it would certainly be appropiate to add: "Bolivia activated its secret mutual defense treaty with Peru."

There is nothing wrong about either of these things, nothing "extremely nationalistic" (which is really an exaggeration and quite an aggressive title for this section). Best of wishes.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 21:58, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

I took some time to edit the first paragraph. What do you think?

The War of the Pacific (Spanish: Guerra del Pacífico) took place in western South America from 1879 through 1883. The forces of Chile fought a defensive alliance of Bolivia and Peru. The conflict is also known as the "Saltpeter War", as disputes over mineral-rich territory were the war's prime cause. The conflict originated in a dispute between Chile and Bolivia over a 10 cent tax on the Antofagasta Nitrate & Railway Company, but Bolivia and Chile's controversy over ownership of Atacama preceded and laid foundations for the conflict. Peru entered the affair in 1879, initially attempting to mediate the dispute. When Chile invaded the Bolivian port city of Antofagasta on February 14, 1879, Bolivia sought the activation of a secret mutual defense treaty with Peru. After learning of the treaty's existence, Chile declared war on both countries on April 5, 1879, and the following day Peru activated the alliance.

The last sentence seems to be a nice summary of Chile's reaction to the treaty.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 22:23, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

I posted an arbitration request against user MarshalN20 because of his edits in the article. Best regrads, --Keysanger (what?) 15:11, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Alright, good luck with that.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 16:39, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

The discussion of the issue is in Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard#War_of_the_Pacific and will continue as soon as the "Bolivian declaration of war" is finished. --Keysanger (what?) 09:23, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Issue 2: Bolivian declaration of war

Unresolved

• However, under international law at that time neither side had actually declared war.[23][24]

It is astonishing that 2 sources are enough to write in the that there was no Bolivian declaration of war. One of the sources (a broken link) is the Peruvian newspaper "La Razon", known not for its scientific art but for his anti-Chilean resentements.

I found 15 sources that state that there was a Bolivian declaration of war and such a overwhelming opinion about the Bolivian declaration of war must be included in the text and as the common view of the historians. The no-declaration-of-war theory can also be included but as a rand view. Here the list of sources:

Extended content

William F. Sater in "Andean Tragedy", page 28 states: Two weeks after the Chilean occupation of Antofagasta, he declared that had imposed "a state of war" on Bolivia. Apparently this decree did not constitute a formal declaration of belligerence, which he announced on 18 March. "Documentary History of the Tacna-Arica dispute, University of Iowa studies in the social sciences, Vol. 8", by William Jefferson Dennis, here, page 69: On March 14 Bolivia advised representatives of foreign powers that a state of war existed with Chile. ... Godoi advised President Pinto that this move was to prevent Chile from securing armaments abroad ... "Andean Tragedy", William F. Sater, page 39:Thus, Daza's declaration of war was a godsend ..., also page 42in March he suddenly declared war on Chile "Latin America's Wars: The age of the caudillo, 1791-1899" By Robert L. Scheina, page 376: On March 18 Bolivia declared war and confiscated all Chilean property in Bolivia and under the terms of a secret treaty ..." "Wars and Peace Treaties, 1816-1991", By Erik Goldstein, page 182: As result of this action Bolivia declared war on Chile (1.March) "The history of Chile" By John Lawrence Rector, page 100: Bolivia declared war and attemted to expel all Chileans from its territory onwar.com: Bolivia then declared war on Chile and called upon Peru for help. country-data.com: Bolivia, in alliance with Peru, declared war on Chile on March 1, ...' andrewclem.com: ... , but Bolivia declared war on Chile and made known its “secret” alliance with Peru in March, ... globalsecurity.com: Bolivia, in alliance with Peru, declared war on Chile on March 1,... Encarta: Bolivia declared war and was joined by Peru, a partner in a secret alliance. "The geopolitics of security in the Americas: hemispheric denial from Monroe ..." by Martin Sicker here: and Bolivia declared war on 14 February 1879 ... "A history of Chile‎" - Page 326, by Luis Galdames, Isaac Joslin Cox - History - 1941 - 565 pages: The government of Chile refused to accede to this. Meanwhile Peru mobilized its army rapidly, Bolivia declared war against Chile, and the press of those ... "Chile and the War of the Pacific"‎ - Page 9 by William F. Sater - History - 1986 - 343 pages Two weeks after Chile occupied the disputed territory, Daza declared war. "The Bolivia-Chile-Peru dispute in the Atacama Desert" by Ronald Bruce St. John, Clive H. Schofield here: "Once Bolivia declared war on March 14 1879 ...".

Best Regards, --Keysanger (what?) 16:11, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Bolivia didn't declare war. Even the first source you present states it: "Apparently this decree did not constitute a formal declaration of belligerence, which he announced on 18 March." "Undue weight" doesn't apply here since even Daza explains that the decree he presented was not a declaration of war.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 16:45, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

You forget the 14 others, what about that?. Best Regards, --Keysanger (what?) 23:07, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

You can provide 100+ sources on the topic, but the article already presents:

1. The view that Chile saw Daza's decree as a declaration of war.
2. The view that his decree was not a declaration of war.

The only new thing you have provided which is important to note is that Daza announced, on March 18, that he did declare war. You can take it to an administrator's forum, but like in the other issue, it will lead you to nothing.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 03:19, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi MarshallN20, Keysanger seems to have provided quite a bit of support for his position here. Do you have reliable sources that also state that this decree was not a declaration of war? Generally, in situations like this, it is appropriate to note in the article that there is disagreement in the reliable sources. Alex Harvey (talk) 04:10, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I do have reliable sources for this matter. First, a quick analysis:

1. William F. Sater is used 3 times in his list, and the source contradicts itself. (P. 39) "Thus, Daza's declaration of war was a godsend". (P. 28) "Apparently this decree did not constitute a formal declaration of belligerence, which he announced on 18 March." Something is incongruent with this source; how is it possible for a decree to not be a declaration of war in Page 28, but then become a declaration of war on Page 39?
2. The Iowa source does not support Keysanger's view as, "On March 14 Bolivia advised representatives of foreign powers that a state of war existed with Chile", does not translate into "Bolivia declared war on Chile".

Please quit trying to trick users with your lists. You have been warned of this plenty of times.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 15:02, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

My proposal is to consider William F. Sater as a reliable professor of Latin American History at California State University (others [12], [13]). I am convinced that such a source is more reliable than the Peruvian newspaper "La Razon". If you have better sources, please feel free to let us know more. Best Regards, --Keysanger (what?) 15:38, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Sater is one person, not multiple persons. It's illogical to gather 3 sources from the same author and try to pass them off as different; writing: "I found 15 sources". It's also surprising that such a reliable source as Sater contradicts himself within the same book. If Daza is the author of his presidential decree, and Sater explains that Daza stated his decree was not a declaration of war; then how is it possible for a few pages later for Sater to claim the decree was a declaration of war? Sater places himself in a position in which he contrasts with Daza's opinion of his own decree.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 16:29, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

MarshalN20 Sources

Extended content

Ramiro Prudencio Lizon (Historian and Diplomat) [14]: "In order for Chile to be able to advance further north an official war declaration was necessary. And it wasn't this country but rather Bolivia the one who sent an internal decree which was afterwards interpreted as a true declaration of war. [...] Obviously, Daza had no interest in declaring war, because he knew that Bolivia was not in conditions to affront a campaign against a country much superior in belligerent resources and which counted with a powerful navy." Atilio Sivirichi, "Historia del Perú" (1932), page 193: "[Daza's decree] was skilfully interpreted by the Chilean government as a declaration of war and as a justification for its occupation of the [Bolivian coast]." William F. Sater, "Andean Tragedy", page 28: "Two weeks after the Chilean occupation of Antofagasta, he declared that Chile had imposed "a state of war" on Bolivia. Apparently this decree did not constitute a formal declaration of belligerence, which he announced on 18 March." Tommaso Caivano, "Historia de la guerra de América entre Chile, Perú y Bolivia", pages 61-62 ([15]): "[Daza's decree], as can be clearly read within it, does not do anything more than dictate a few measures relative to true the state of war in which Bolivia and Chile found themselves after the invasion of [Bolivian territory] by [Chile], and, like it textually and carefully states, "while this state of war imposed by Chile upon Bolivia", was interpreted by Chile in an extremely original manner." Mariano Felipe Paz Soldán, "Narracion Historica de la Guerra de Chile contra el Peru y Bolivia". On Page 80 he presents the Bolivian March 1st declaration and explains its nature (at no point describing it as a declaration of war). On Page 86 makes first mention of a declaration of war, this coming from Chile to both Peru and Bolivia. Text from Page 86 ([16]): "War having been declared by Chile, it needed to justify its conduct upon the neutral nations and, at a loss of good reasons founded in law and corroborated by deeds, opted for falsity, presenting a series of situations under a distortion of reality, and others completely false. [Chile] said among other things that Peru did not gesture Bolivia in time to lead it towards a good path and procede with fewer recklesness and violence in its determinations." Valentín Abecia Baldivieso, "The History of Bolivia in International Relations. Vol 2.," page 73: "But in reality no such declaration of war took place. The decree (Hilarión Daza's decree) to which this characteristic [of declaring war] is attributed only alludes that "Chile has indeed invaded the national territory", stipulating that "all commerce and communication with the Republic of Chile is cut for the duration of the war that [Chile] has promoted upon Bolivia." He later states that Chileans should vacate the country given deadlines in cases of emergency and taking action on property belonging to them. Therefore, it is not correct to attribute that Decree the characteristics of a declaration of war, because under the international law of the time, it was not. The steps taken were for security because Chile had taken Antofagasta. On April 3 the declaration of war by the Chilean Congress was approved, and by the 5th it became known throughout the press." Guillermo Cortés Lutz, "La Guerra del Pacífico: Graves Errores en la Enseñanza de la Historia y su Distorsión en los Sistemas Educativos en Chile, Perú y Bolivia" [17]: "The key moment to give the "go" on war starts in the day planned for the auction, Chilean troops, at the command of Colonel Emilio Sotomayor, occupy Antofagasta. Later comes the negative of Peru to maintain its impartiality, Manuel Prado, arguments that he has been tied by a secret pact, and with this Chile declares war on Peru and Bolivia on April 5, 1879, without ignoring the invasion manu militari, was the start of the war." Note: Cortes Lutz does not attribute March 1st decree as declaration of war, but rather states the Chilean declaration and invasion is what starts the war. Richard Gibbs, USA Envoy Extraordinary and Minister Plenipotentiary, "Message from the President of the United States" [18], pages 198-199 (March 12, 1879): "Up to the present, I have no information of a formal declaration of war having been made either by Chili or Bolivia. Chili has, by force of arms through her vessels of war, taken posession of the coast of Bolivia [...] and holds the whole coast, establishing marine, military, and civil government. [...]The only official action taken by Bolivia is a proclamation by President Daza, which is not a declaration of war. I inclose a copy of it in Spanish, taken from a Lima paper, and a translation from the South Pacific Times, of Callao." William Spence Robertson, "History of the Latin-American Nations" [19]. Page 324: "On February 14, 1879, which was the date set by Bolivia for the sale of the company's property to ensure the payment of the taxes, Chilean soldiers took possession of Antofagasta. Two weeks later Bolivia announced that in consequence a state of war existed between her and Chile. After the Peruvian government had declined to proclaim its neutrality in the struggle, Chile declared war upon Bolivia and Peru. The conflict which ensued has been designated by South Americans as the War of the Pacific." Page 345: "But the efforts of Peruvian diplomats were fruitless. After Peru had declined to proclaim her neutrality, the Chilean government--which claimed to have ben just informed of the secret treaty of alliance between Bolivia and Peru -- declared war upon the allies on April 5, 1879. Note: Robertson explains that Bolivia announced Chile began the war ("In consequence" to Chilean soldiers taking possession of Antofagasta). General Directory of Statistics, Chile Page 3: "The old enemity of Peru and the perfidious machinations of its government being thus discovered, war was inevitable, and was declared by Chile on the 4th. of April 1879." Page 6: "The present war which Chile makes against Peru and Bolivia." Note: Both statements are pretty clear. March 1st declaration isn't even mentioned. Edward D. Mansfield, "Electing to Fight: Why Emerging Democracies Go to War" [20], Page 202: "Chile's role as initiator of the War of the Pacific against Peru and Bolivia in 1879, fought over nitrate deposits, demonstrates the dangers of coalition politics in weakly institutionalized states undergoing an incomplete democratic transition." Note: March 1st decree ignored. Jack L. Snyder. Co-author to "Electing to Fight: Why Emerging Democracies Go to War." John B. Allcock, "Border and Territorial Disputes" [21], page 574: "After Bolivia had broken an agreement signed with Chile at Sucre in 1874 by placing fresh taxes on Chilean firms already exploiting nitrates in the common zone, a Chilean expeditionary force in February 1879 took possession of Antofagasta and Mejillones (on the coast) and Caracoles (inland). Chile called on Peru to proclaim its neutrality in the conflict, and, when the latter refused, declared war on both." Note: March 1st decree ignored. Benjamin Keen, "A History of Latin America" [22], page 256: "In February 1879, despite Chilean warnings that expropriation of Chilean enterprises would void the treaty of 1874, the Bolivian government ordered the confiscation carried out. On February 14, the day set for the seizure and sale of the Chilean properties, Chilean troops occupied the port of Antofagasta, encountering no resistance, and proceeded to extend Chilean control over the whole province. Totally unprepared for war, Peru made a vain effort to mediate between Chile and Bolivia. Chile, however, having learned of the secret Peruvian-Bolivian alliance, charged Peru with intolerable duplicity and declared war on both Peru and Bolivia on April 5, 1879." Note: Another source in which the March 1st decree isn't even mentioned as anything relevant to the war and Chile is presented as the declarer of war. Keith Haynes. Co-author to "A History of Latin America."

These sources are more than enough to demonstrate that Daza's decree was not a true declaration of war. Not only does Daza explain this, as sourced by Sater, but the information is backed up by historical analysis. On the other hand, the sources presented by Keysanger are merely textual parrots, merely stating that Bolivia declared war without any further analysis. It's important to mention that the article does present Chile's view about Daza's decree. However, Keysanger is trying to use the WP concept of "Undue weight" to present Chile's POV as supreme and leave the analysis of Daza's decree (including Daza's own opinion about his decree) as "minority views".--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 18:49, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Your rationale is broken because you contradict yourself: W.F.Sater, is a source for or not for a Bolivian Declaration of war?. Now you say that he is a source for NO declaration of war. Above you say that he was cited three times. What about the other two?. Do you have also reliable sources?. Best Regards, --Keysanger (what?) 21:19, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

I honestly don't understand what it is you are trying to state. I have already provided the necessary amount of sources to discard your "Undue Weight" claim.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 22:45, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi Marshal, I am inclined to agree that Keysanger has made a point here, and that it is probably too strong to have Wikipedia assert as a fact that, "under international law at that time neither side had actually declared war". That is an absolute statement. I think the statement should be attributed, i.e. "According to X, ...". When Wikipedia's voice makes an absolute statement, it should be a statement of an uncontested fact. Also I am finding it confusing that Keysanger's sources do indeed say that Bolivia declared war - not just that Chile thought Bolivia declared war. If these historians are wrong, the article doesn't help me to understand why they are wrong. I am happy to be persuaded otherwise? Also (a suggestion to both Keysanger & MarshalN20), having multiple threads open discussing multiple disputes at the same time is probably not ideal. Should we try to resolve this point first? Alex Harvey (talk) 15:47, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

That's not Keysanger's point, but rather your point Alex. Keysanger's point is that there is "Undue Weight" in the article, which is not true. The sources I have provided are from a long timespan (starting from the early 20th century all the way to the 2000's) of different historians from different nationalities (including Daza's own explanation of his decree). Your point, Alex, about the "International law" part and its status as "uncontested fact" is correct. Going back in time, I found this old consensus statement, proposed by me, in which the four users discussing this same issue at that time agreed [23]:

How about this for statement: "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."--[|!*//MarshalN20\\*!|] (talk) 00:56, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

This discussion reminded me of the existence of this consensus statment. I no idea what happened to it until now: [24]. It turns out that Keysanger massively deleted the consensus statement and sources in order to impose his POV. Strangely enough, he is trying to do the exact same thing at this point, except that now he tries to use the concept of "Undue Weight". I don't believe in history repeating itself, but this sure does seem like a case of Déjà vu. What I plan to do at this point is propose another consensus statement, which may take a few minutes.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 17:10, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

This discussion continues in Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard#War_of_the_Pacific_:_Bolivian_declaration_of_war. --Keysanger (what?) 23:39, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

And yet you keep doing exactly the opposite of what Alex suggests. *Sighs*--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 23:55, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

If I could recommend calm. I am optimistic that a compromise can be found that will satisfy both parties and also improve the article. It seems to me that both Keysanger & Marshall are making valid points so we need to find a wording that expresses both points fairly. To Marshall, the consensus statement seems to have similar problems to what is already in the article, i.e. it concludes in Wikipedia's voice that "in reality no war had yet been formally declared from either side of the conflict". Yet that statement seems to be at odds with reliable sources Keysanger has produced. The issue seems to be not just that the Chilean government interpreted Daza's decree as a declaration of war, but that some modern historians also interpret it that way. It might be an idea to consider some sort of digression in the text: "Some historians have seen the Bolivian decree as a formal declaration of war [insert evidence] while others have taken the view that a state of war did not exist until Chile declared so on [date][insert evidence]." Perhaps we can quote Daza himself on his own view, which seems fair enough. What do we think of a solution along these lines? Alex Harvey (talk) 06:38, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

My answer to this is Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard#War_of_the_Pacific_:_Bolivian_declaration_of_war here, see Of course I plead for a cite of the MarshalN20 view,.... Best regards, --Keysanger (what?) 11:23, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Okay I have read all that now. I would like to understand why Sater appears to contradict himself. He is quoted by Marshal as saying, "Two weeks after the Chilean occupation of Antofagasta, [Daza] declared that Chile had imposed "a state of war" on Bolivia. Apparently this decree did not constitute a formal declaration of belligerence, which he announced on 18 March." He says, "Apparently". Why does he use that word? Is it possible he is revising his earlier opinion? Alex Harvey (talk) 14:40, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm still in the process of creating a new consensus statement. I refuse to participate in the NPOV noticeboard discussion simultaneously to this one in the talk page (as long as Alex remains as a third-view on the discussion). Regarding Sater's contradiction, I honestly do not understand what Sater is trying to state. What I do know is that "Chile and the War of the Pacific" was published in 1986, and "Andean Tragedy" was published in 2007. Perhaps he is indeed revising his previous statements, because the usage of the word "apparently" is of discovery (i.e., I thought that chicken salad was perfect but, apparently, it was a fish salad).--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 15:27, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

::::::At 18:49, on 22 July 2011 (UTC)MarshalN20 wrote [25]:

Two weeks after the Chilean occupation of Antofagasta, he declared that Chile had imposed "a state of war" on Bolivia. Apparently this decree did not constitute a formal declaration of belligerence, which he announced on 18 March."

But the original text of Sater says:

Two weeks after the Chilean occupation of Antofagasta, he declared that had imposed "a state of war" on Bolivia. Apparently this decree did not constitute a formal declaration of belligerence, which he announced on 18 March.

Alex, do you note the difference?. MarshalN20 has inserted "Chile" into Saters words to confuse and fool the reader. Unbelievable. Best Regards, --Keysanger (what?) 16:44, 24 July 2011 (UTC) This contrib was deleted by the author on 24 July 2011, 16:45. --Best regards, Keysanger (what?) 12:33, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

What's unbelievable is that you keep demonstrating me your lack of good faith. Alex, I'm trying my best to believe Keysanger has good intentions, but the above statement (in which he is the one distorting Sater's statement) and his desire of including the term "so-called" in order to incite trouble ([26] and [27]), really make it hard. Using his own logic, Keysanger purposely deleted the mention of "Chile" in order to trick both you and me into agreeing with him. Please stop trying to trick us Keysanger.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 16:55, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

I deleted my contribution 1 minute later as I discovered that there are two versions of Sater's statement. It seems now that my version is wrong, but I can't say now how ocurred the mistake. Sorry for the problem. Best Regards, --Keysanger (what?) 17:04, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

This isn't the first time you are doing something tricky. For the sake of continuing the discussion little option exists than to continue believing you're making "mistakes", but it all ultimately hurts your own credibility. Please be more careful.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 17:13, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

If you think that I am tricking you, feel free to call a admin. Best Regards, --Keysanger (what?) 17:18, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

I revisited a link of former discussions and found:

Under [28], page 69 and 70, a book of the Iowa University which includes official statements of the governments, letters , etc of that time.

In page 69 and 70 the book, under the title "N°28. Bolivian War Circular, March 31, 1879" states following:

Introduction and source- On March 14 Bolivia advised representatives of foreign powers that a state of war existed with Chile. The announcement was issued from Lima.

...

Meanwhile over the Andes at La Paz, and it may be said here parenthetically that a single telegraph line might have prevented this war, Daza issued letters of marque against Chile on March 26, and a formal war circular on March 31. Taken from British State Papers, 1879-80, Vol. LXXI, pp 926-933.

...

There can't be any doubt that the British government was informed about the Bolivian declaration of war. Also the Chilean governmaent understand the Bolivian declaration of war as a declaration of war (see Gonzalo Bulnes).

Best Regards, --Keysanger (what?) 18:53, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

You're forgetting that Chile invaded Antofagasta on February 14. Antofagasta had never belonged to Chile prior to their invasion and forceful removal of Bolivian authorities. That is what Daza is refering to when he explains that "Chile provoked the war upon Bolivia". That is what the historians I have sourced explain. Even Sater explains how "Apparently this decree did not constitute a formal declaration of belligerence". The point now is to come up with a new NPOV text which exhibits both points of view.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 19:10, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Discussing the Sater source

Okay I am glad we agree that Sater is correctly quoted by Marshal and that Sater's more recent view (2007) is that the Daza decree was "apparently" not a formal declaration of war. Can someone with access to Sater 2007 expand on this statement in context? Does he give a foot note? Any other clues as to why he appears to revise his earlier position here? Alex Harvey (talk) 02:02, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Here is the preview of the text from Google Books ([29]). No footnotes, but I can provide the paragraph:

La Paz did not supinely accept the loss of its seacoast: some eight to ten thousand of its residents massed in one of the capital's main plazas demanding weapons so they could expel the Chilean filibusters who had seized their coast. In truth, these enthusiastic but utterly unprepared volunteers could do nothing. Even President Hilarion Daza had to limit himself to symbolic gestures: two weeks after the Chilean occupation of Antofagasta, he declared that Chile had imposed "a state of war" on Bolivia. Apparently this decree did not constitute a formal declaration of belligerence, which he announced on 18 March. Only on 5 April did Santiago reciprocate, plunging South America's west coast into what became known as the War of the Pacific, a conflict which lasted until 1884.

I have no idea what Sater has on his mind or why he seems to have changed his earlier statements. He refers to the decree as a "symbolic gesture", and now claims that Santiago's reciprocation "plunged" South America into the war. I'm sure Sater is a reliable source, considering his PhD, but something is definitely wrong with his process of thought. I am almost done writing the consensus statement, but I am still unsure as to how Sater should be cited. Any ideas?--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 04:27, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

I suppose we could send an email to Sater and ask him what he meant and he may respond helpfully with other sources. It's quite possible that he has simply changed his mind. Aside from Sater are there any other Western historians who support the position that the Daza decree was not a declaration of war? Alex Harvey (talk) 06:50, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

He apparently works at California State University, but I am not sure how to contact him. From past experience, we should avoid contacting his publisher since they don't bother replying to questions not related to buying the book. However, professors are generally happy to provide their thoughts about their books. Regarding other western historians, all of my sources are from western historians. Unless I am wrong, Ramiro Prudencio Lizon died a few years ago. Google Books is limited in their source material, but I think that all of the sources shown demonstrate that the "Undue Weight" claim is false (plenty of evidence exists in favor of both points of view), and that both "theories" have strong supporters depending on their interpretation.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 12:44, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

I repeat here my contribution in Alex's talk page:

Sater wrote more than one book about this theme, he is a profesor of Latin American History in the USA and probably one of the best informed person in the world about the War of the Pacific, so I cited him as often as needed. I don't understand you, Alex, why do you find unfair and tricky to use Sater three times, one from page 28 and another from page 39 of "Andean Tragedy" and other from page 9 of "Chile and the War of the Pacific"‎. Yourself have problems to understand the first citation of Sater (page 28), that I cited wrong, then you can use the second (page 39) and the thrird ones (page 9) to see that Sater without any doubt asserts that there was a Bolivian declaration of war. Keysanger, the bottom line is I did not think you intended to deceive here, and I said the same I think to Marshal. It gave me the impression that 15 historians supported your view whereas it turned out to be 12. In retrospect I can see there may have been other reasons for you to emphasise Sater so sorry about that. Alex Harvey (talk) 13:21, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Sater's sentence: "Two weeks after the Chilean occupation of Antofagasta, he declared that Chile had imposed "a state of war" on Bolivia. Apparently this decree did not constitute a formal declaration of belligerence, which he announced on 18 March." is for me very clear.

The word Apparently in Sater's sentence means "for some persons" and to avoid any ambiguity he says at the end "which he announced on 18 March". We remember that the Chilean occupation of Antofagasta occured on 14 February, so the first "declaration" was two weeks later, we say end of February or begin March. The second declaration was also on 18 March.

If MarshallN20 still has problems with the first citation of Sater, then he should use the second one from a second book and the third one from a third book. I don't see there ANY problem in Sater's stance.

It doesn't matter whether the author of the NYT is a Chinese or a Canadian, it is matter only that it is published by the NYT one of the most consulted newspapers of the world opposite to MarshallN20 "La Razón".--Keysanger (what?) 11:19, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

I repeat. If you have any doubt about Sater's opinion in the first citation, what do you think of the second or the third?. --Keysanger (what?) 11:19, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

I will respond in a numbered format in order to maintain a small amount of order.

1. Sater is one person. You claimed that you had "found 15 sources", when that was not the case. It would be like me holding 3 dollars, but counting them long enough to claim I have 6 dollars. It's not right and ends up tricking/confusing whoever is reading into believing something that is not true.
2. Sater's "Chile and the War of the Pacific" was published in 1986, and "Andean Tragedy" was published in 2007. There is a 21 year gap in Sater's work. During this time he seems to have changed his stance on the Bolivian decree of March 1st. Anything he wrote in 2007 is more up-to-date, more accurate, than whatever he wrote in 1986. History changes partly because historians change their point of view as they become more educated on the subject.
3. The word "apparently" in no way or form can be equated with the term "for some persons".
4. Authorship is important in all works. Companies such as the NYT generally state: "The opinions expressed in this diary do not reflect the newspaper's stance...bla bla bla". Having the opinion of a "Chilean correspondant" is unreliable considering we don't know who really is this person (job, role, etc.).
5. "La Razon" is a reliable newspaper, but what matters is the article written by the historian.

I hope this answers your questions.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 13:12, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I may have misunderstood that all three quotes came from the same book, which makes the situation more puzzling. The word "apparently" actually does not mean "for some persons" as you say; but rather "it appears that; as far as one knows; seemingly". If by "apparently" he meant "according to the Bolivians", then it would be a case of badly chosen words. More likely, I think, it suggests that he is uncertain himself on this point. I believe it would be a good solution to email Sater; I am sure he would be only too happy to clarify this for us. In fact I'll do this if you like. The real question, though, is does Marshal have other Western historians to support his position? Alex Harvey (talk) 13:21, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

We discussed the matter in Alex's talk page. I do have some more Western historians as sources. These do not say whether the decree was or was not a declaration of war, but rather their analysis of the war completely discards the March 1st decree. They inadvertedly disregard it as unimportant and, instead, focus on the Chilean invasion of Antofagasta and Chile's later declaration of war as the primary offenses.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 23:12, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Please, write this sources here. here is the discussion not in Alex talk page. Best Regards, --Keysanger (what?) 16:38, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

The sources are on the list...--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 16:42, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Error on the dates

Many of the sources presented by Keysanger throw dates randomly, and others simply don't even bother to mention them. Daza's decree was made on March 1st (this is an established fact), and yet many of Keysanger's sources say that it was on March 18, February 14, and March 14. Some sources don't even provide a date. Considering these sources provide erroneous dates, I consider their usage as reference to "Daza's declaration of war" as incorrect.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 23:12, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

MarshalN20's Proposal

Alright, this took a while and hopefully it will be something everyone can agree with to end this part of the discussion. I used Keysanger's sources from the list which mentioned the March 1 decree as a declaration of war, and did not use those which failed to mention it (i.e., those sources that simply stated, "Bolivia declared war", without explaining when or how). I ended up presenting 3 points of view: The first is that of the pro-war group; the second is the anti-war group; the last is the don't-care group (which don't attribute anything important to the March 1st decree). It needs better source formatting, but I'm sure that's not a problem since the material is cited with enough information. Without further words, here it is:

Daza's decree is a controversial subject in the history of the conflict. One side of the historical analysis affirms that the decree signifies a Bolivian declaration of war against Chile. Another side argues that the decree was not a declaration of war, but rather it was a security measure taken in response to the Chilean invasion of Antofagasta. This side further argues that Chile purposely interpreted Daza's decree as a declaration of war in order to justify their invasion of Bolivia. Other historians completely avoid mentioning Daza's decree, and instead focus on other causes for the start of the conflict. Bolivian historian Ramiro Prudencio Lizon states that "Daza had no interest in declaring war, because he knew that Bolivia was not in conditions to affront a campaign against a country much superior in belligerent resources and which counted with a powerful navy." On March 12, Richard Gibbs, United States Ambassador to Peru, wrote a letter to his government explaining that neither Bolivia or Chile had declared war up to that point. According to American historian William F. Sater, on March 18, Hilarión Daza clarified that his March 1st decree was not a declaration of war.

Any suggestions are welcome.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 00:43, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

@ Marshal, I am optimistic that this is a move in the right direction but I have some concerns. (1) all the footnotes suggest the weight on each point is proportional to the number of footnotes. I don't believe this truly achieves "balance". (2) I am not sure I like reducing the history to two opposing "sides". I think it could say more about Wikipedia's content dispute in the talk page than it does about history. (3) it is heavily weighted to telling Bolivia-Peru's side of the story while Chile's argument is presented as a bald assertion. Obviously the writer (you) agrees with Bolivia-Peru's version. (4) I don't think Sater can be used as a source at all while his Andean Tragedy seems to waver on the point. Whichever version he is presented as supporting, it would be cherry picking - unless he has clarified his view somewhere. Alex Harvey (talk) 14:02, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the comment Alex. I'll reply with numbers:

1. I don't really understand what you mean by the "weight on each point is proportional to the number of footnotes". What I had in mind was mixing all the references for each point into a single one, but in the reference section splitting them up. This is something one of the evaluators of the Peru national football team suggested to me when he was reviewing the article for GA status. Look at references 17, 21, and 120 in the football article. This would avoid having all those numbers in the paragraph. What do you think?
2. I can't think of another way to present the concept that two opposing views exist. Maybe I'm out of creativity. Any suggestions?
3. In terms of balance, I was hoping Keysanger could provide a quote from a Chilean historian/diplomat/foreign relations expert?
4. I avoided mentioning Sater's opinion on the subject since we do not know what his stance truly is. Hence, I used him to reference Daza's opinion about his own decree. I think my sentence is pretty accurate and in no way can be misinterpreted as expressing Sater's opinion on the subject. That is, unless a better option exists?

This paragraph would go right after the paragraph which states Daza's decree. I'm sure the paragraph can be improved, but hopefully it will work as a foundation. --MarshalN20 | ^Talk 15:18, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Alright. Here is another attempt at consensus:

Daza's decree is a controversial subject in the history of the conflict. The Chilean government interpreted the decree as a declaration of war, and the majority of historians have since then debated the legitimacy of Chile's claim. Historians Erick Goldstein, Hans-Joachim König, and Philipp Reclam are among those who claim that Daza's March 1st decree is a war declaration retaliating to Chile's invasion of Antofagasta. On the other hand, historians Tommaso Caivano, William Sater, and Valentin Abecia Baldivieso are among those who claim that Daza's March 1st decree was only a security measure given Chile's armed invasion and not a declaration of war. Historian Ramiro Prudencion Lizon explains that Chile required an official declaration of war to advance further north into the Bolivian coast; which is why, according to historians Mariano Felipe Paz Soldán and Atilio Sivirichi, Chile purposely distorted Daza's decree to justify its occupation of Bolivia's coast. Nonetheless, a small number of historians, including William Sater and Robert Scheina, believe that Bolivia declared war on March 18; and another group believes the war declaration came in March 14.

I am not sure if it would be good to include the information explaining that the March 18th information is, according to Lavalle (primary source) and Basadre (secondary source), the copy of the March 1st declaration which circulated Chile. As always, any help is appreciated.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 01:31, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Review of joint achievements

It is time to recapitulate.

MarshalN20's sources

I see that MarshalN20 is running out of sources:

Extended content

YRamiro Prudencio Lizon A Bolivian Historian and Diplomat YAtilio Sivirichi A Peruvian Historian NWilliam F. Sater, "Andean Tragedy", page 28: is wrong cited NTommaso Caivano, A primary source NMariano Felipe Paz Soldán, Peruvian Primary source YValentín Abecia Baldivieso,A Bolivian historian NGuillermo Cortés Lutz, says nothing for or against the dec of war NRichard Gibbs, USA Envoy Extraordinary and Minister Plenipotentiary, "Message from the President of the United States" A primary source NWilliam Spence Robertson, says that "later Bolivia announced that in consequence a state of war existed between her and Chile" NGeneral Directory of Statistics, Chile a primary source that says nothing for or against the Bdow NEdward D. Mansfield, "Electing to Fight: Why Emerging Democracies Go to War" says nothing for or against a Bdow NJack L. Snyder. Co-author to "Electing to Fight: Why Emerging Democracies Go to War." says nothing for or against a Bdow NJohn B. Allcock, "Border and Territorial Disputes" says nothing for or against a Bdow NBenjamin Keen, "A History of Latin America" says nothing for or against a Bdow. NKeith Haynes. Co-author to "A History of Latin America."says nothing for or against a Bdow

MarshalN20 could bring 2 Bolivians and 1 Peruvian historians for this new theory and two sources for the Bolivian declaration of war (Sater and William Spence Robertson).

Keysanger's sources

What have we to verify the Bolivian declaration of war:

Extended content

Y William F. Sater in "Andean Tragedy", states: page 28 Two weeks after the Chilean occupation of Antofagasta, he declared that Chile had imposed "a state of war" on Bolivia. Apparently this decree did not constitute a formal declaration of belligerence, which he announced on 18 March. page 39 Thus, Daza's declaration of war was a godsend ..., also page 42in March he suddenly declared war on Chile page 129 Pinto refused, perhaps believing that Daza would accept a return to the "status quo ante". But Daza did not: two weeks after the Chilean occupation of Antofagasta, Bolivia declared war Y "Chile and the War of the Pacific"‎ - Page 9 by William F. Sater - History - 1986 - 343 pages Two weeks after Chile occupied the disputed territory, Daza declared war. Y "Documentary History of the Tacna-Arica dispute, University of Iowa studies in the social sciences, Vol. 8", by William Jefferson Dennis, here, page 69: On March 14 Bolivia advised representatives of foreign powers that a state of war existed with Chile. ... Godoi advised President Pinto that this move was to prevent Chile from securing armaments abroad ... Meanwhile over the Andes at La Paz, and it may be said here parenthetically that a single telegraph line might have prevented this war, Daza issued letters of marque against Chile on March 26, and a formal war circular on March 31. Taken from British State Papers, 1879-80, Vol. LXXI, pp 926-933. Y "Latin America's Wars: The age of the caudillo, 1791-1899" By Robert L. Scheina, page 376: On March 18 Bolivia declared war and confiscated all Chilean property in Bolivia and under the terms of a secret treaty ..." Y "Wars and Peace Treaties, 1816-1991", By Erik Goldstein, page 182: As result of this action Bolivia declared war on Chile (1.March) Y "The history of Chile" By John Lawrence Rector, page 100: Bolivia declared war and attemted to expel all Chileans from its territory Y onwar.com: Bolivia then declared war on Chile and called upon Peru for help. Y country-data.com: Bolivia, in alliance with Peru, declared war on Chile on March 1, ...' Y andrewclem.com: ... , but Bolivia declared war on Chile and made known its “secret” alliance with Peru in March, ... Y globalsecurity.com: Bolivia, in alliance with Peru, declared war on Chile on March 1,... Y Encarta: Bolivia declared war and was joined by Peru, a partner in a secret alliance. Y "The geopolitics of security in the Americas: hemispheric denial from Monroe ..." by Martin Sicker here: and Bolivia declared war on 14 February 1879 ... Y "A history of Chile‎" - Page 326, by Luis Galdames, Isaac Joslin Cox - History - 1941 - 565 pages: The government of Chile refused to accede to this. Meanwhile Peru mobilized its army rapidly, Bolivia declared war against Chile, and the press of those ... Y "The Bolivia-Chile-Peru dispute in the Atacama Desert" by Ronald Bruce St. John, Clive H. Schofield here: "Once Bolivia declared war on March 14 1879 ...". Y"The Ten Cents War", Bruce W. Farcau, Praeger Publishers, 2000, page 42: News of the landings reached La Paz whithin few days, but, for reason never quite made clear, Daza withheld any proclamations for another week, allegedlly to avoid putting a damper on the Carnival celebrations then underway, but on 27 February, the Bolivian legislature issued the authorization for a declaration of war, although the formal declaration would not be forthcomming until 14 March. Further, on Page 43 B.W. Farcau states: Lavalle departed Lima on 22 February, well before the Bolivian declaration of war, but nothing irreversible was to occur for some time... and inpage 44 he continues: ...Word have now reached Santiago of the Bolivian declaration of war, and, ... Y"Kleine Geschichte Lateinamerikas", by Hans-Joachim König, Philipp Reclam, Stuttgart, 2009, ISBN 978-3-315-017062-5, page 479: Chilenische Einheiten besetzten die bolivianischen Hafenstadt Antofagasta, in der nur 5% der Bevölkerung bolivianisch waren. Daraufhin erklärte Bolivian am 1. März 1879 den Krieg an. YJosé Antonio Lavalle, "Mi mision en Chile en 1879", Edición, prólogo y notas por Félix Denegri Luna , Lima, Peru, 1979, Instituto de Estudios Histórico-Marítimos del Perú. (José Antonio Lavalle was the Peruvian envoy to Chile to mediate during the crisis and Félix Denegri Luna was a well known Peruvian historian [30]) In the Prolog to the book of the Peruvian envoy to Chile to "mediate" during the crisis, Félix Denegri Luna explains in aprox. 65 pages the situation of the three countries. He wrote in: page XLIII El 1° de marzo Bolivia entró en guerra con Chile page LVIII La declaración esta fechada en La Paz el 1° de Marzo. page LXII Lavalle se indignó cuando se enteró que Daza había declarado la guerra a Chile. La noticia llegada a Santiago dos semanas después ... The text of envoy Lavalle is a primary source, but allow me a transgression of this important rule of Wikipedia only in order to get a vivid view of the situation at that time. Lavalle says in page 84: En la mañana del 18 recibí una carta verbal* del señor ministro Fierro [Chilean Minister for Foreign Affairs] pidiéndome que le viese a las 12 del día siguiente, para tener una conferencia relativa al objeto de mi mision, y pocos momentos después llegó a mis manos un suplemento del "Diario Oficial", en el que se anunciaba que el ministro de relaciones exteriores había recibido desde Tacna, por medio de correos, y desde Caldera por el telegráfo, el decreto expedido por el presidente de Bolivia en 1° del mes de marzo, que seguía, en el cual establecíase por parte de esa nación el "casus belli" con Chile, con todos sus efectos y consequencias YJorge Besadre, "Historia de la Republica, La guerra con Chile", Pero las pasiones excitadas no se enfriaron. El dí­a 18 de marzo se abrió un nuevo perí­odo de la misión Lavalle. Ese dí­a fue recibido en Santiago, desde Tacna por correo y desde Caldera por telégrafo el decreto expedido por el Presidente Daza y notificado al cuerpo diplomático el 14 de marzo estableciendo el casus belli con Chile con todos sus efectos y consecuencias, junto con otros decretos de ruptura de relaciones mientras durara la guerra y de expulsión y confiscación de bienes chilenos en Bolivia. Esto ocurrió a pesar de que Quiones y Doria Medina acordaron el 5 de marzo las bases para la mediación peruana. La versión chilena fue que Bolivia quiso impedir que Chile se armara. En realidad, Daza buscó la forma de malograr la misión Lavalle. Una vez más la legación peruana en La Paz había fallado porque, según el tratado secreto, un acto de esta especie debía haberse hecho previo acuerdo de las partes. Al no estar declarada la guerra entre Chile y Bolivia, Chile no podía pedir al Perú que se mantuviera neutral. Porque la había declarado Bolivia, la exigencia chilena de neutralidad peruana era inevitable. La declaración boliviana de guerra era (dice el historiador chileno Bulnes) un palo atravesado en las ruedas del carro empujado por Lavalle. La situación que se habí­a ido agravando mes a mes y semana a semana, se complicaba ahora día a dí­a, hora a hora, minuto a minuto. El Perú se veí­a envuelto con rapidez creciente en un conflicto tremendo, sin tiempo casi para presentar la acción conciliatoria propia y sin haber buscado una acción análoga de Argentina, Estados Unidos o las potencias europeas Tranlation by Keysanger: ...on 18 March was the begin of a new phase in Lavalle's mission. This day was received in Santiago from Tacna by post and from Caldera by telegram Daza's decree that notified on 14 March all diplomats about the casus belli against Chile with all efects and consequences, together with other decrees of rupture of relations as long as the war lasted and of expulsion of Chileans and confiscation of his goods. The Chilean version saw that Bolivia ['s declaration of war] aimed to impede the purchase of weapons to Chile. In reality, Daza intended to eliminate Lavalle's mission. Once again the Peruvian legation in La Paz [Bolivia] failed because in accordance with the treaty such act [declaration of war] should have been done in agreement between both [Peru and Bolivia]. As long as no state of war between Chile and Bolivia existed , Chile couldn't require neutrality from Peru. Since Bolivia declared the war on Chile, the Chilean request of Peruvian neutrality was inevitable. The Bolivian declaration of war on Chile was (as stated by Chilean historian Bulnes) a traverse fault through the wheel of Lavalle's handkart. The situation worsened month to month ... YHerbert 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 25: "The Bolivian war manifesto was issued on February 27, 1879, …"(added by --Keysanger (what?) 11:48, 4 August 2011 (UTC)) YClaude Michel Cluny, "Atacama, Ensayo sobre la guerra del Pacifico, 1879-1883", 2008, 480 pages, ISBN 978-968-16-7982-8, Original title of the French book: "Atacama, Essay sur la guerre du Pacifique, 1879-1883": page 441, "1° de Marzo, Bolivia declara la guerra a Chile" (Added by --Best regards, Keysanger (what?) 06:56, 11 August 2011 (UTC)) YGerhard Lang, "Boliviens Streben nach freiem Zugang zum Meer", Hamburger Gesellschaft für Völkerrecht und Auswärtige Politik, Herausgegeben von Prof. Dr. Herbert Krüger, Band 6, Hamburg 1966, Seite 25: Die peruanisch-chilenischen Verhandlungen waren noch im Gange. Da gab der bolivianische Sonderbevollmächtigte in Perú, Außenminister Serapio Reyes Ortiz, der den Auftrag hatte, von der peruanischen Regierung gemäß Artikel 3 des Büdnisvertrages von 1873 die Anerkennung des casus foederis zu erwirken, namens seiner Regierung dem bei der peruanischen Regierung akkreditierten diplomatischen Korps am 14. März durch Zirkularnote die vom 1. März datierte Kriegserklärung Boliviens an Chile(Fußnote 54) bekannt. Diese ungewöhnliche Schritt, eine Kriegserklärung auf diese Weise publik zu machen, erklärt sich daraus, daß zu jener Zeit nur wenige Länder in La Paz vertreten waren und die Nachrichtenübermittlung von dort wesentlich längere Zeit benötigte als von Lima aus. Mit der rechtzeitigen Bekanntgabe der Kriegserklärung aber sollten die Auslieferung von Kriegsschiffen, die bei europäischen Werften im Auftrag gegeben worden waren, und weitere Waffenlieferungen an Chile verhindert werden. Fußnote 54: State papers, Bd. 71, S. 926 Translation: The Peruvian-Chilean negotiations were still in progress when, on his government's behalf, the Bolivian special plenipotentiary in Peru, foreign minister Serapio Reyes Ortiz, who was commissioned to obtain the Peruvian government's recognition of casus foederis according to article 3 of the 1873 treaty of alliance, announced Bolivia's declaration of war on Chile(footnote 54), dated March 1, by circular note to the diplomatic Corps accredited to Peru. This unusual step, to make public a declaration of war in this fashion, can be explained by the fact that only few countries were represented in La Paz at the time, and communications from there took significantly longer than from Lima. The timely announcement of the declaration of war, however, was supposed to impede the deployment of war ships that had been commissioned to European shipyards, as well as the delivery of weapons to Chile. Footnote 54: State papers, Bd. 71, p. 926 (added by --Best regards, Keysanger (what?) 12:05, 18 August 2011 (UTC)) YWaldemar Hummer, "Revindikation von historischen Gebietstiteln in Lateinamerika - Die Forderung Boliviens auf Zugang zum Meer", Herausgegeben im Auftrag der "Gesellschaft zur Forderung der Forschungen zur Europäischen und Vergleichende Rechtsgeschichte" an der Karl-Franzens-Universität Graz von o. Univ.-Prof. Dr. Bertold Sutter, Heft 16, Graz, 1983, p. 24: Angesichts dieser Invasion blieb der bolivianischen Regierung nichts anders übrig, als Chile am 1. März 1879 den Krieg zu erklären sowie Peru um Einhaltung des am ... (added by --Best regards, Keysanger (what?) 12:05, 18 August 2011 (UTC))

Review

Please, read carefuly my sources again, I added 3 new sources (Besadre, Farcau, Lavalle/Negri) and compacted Sater's 2 citations of one book to only one source. What can we say about the sources that sustain the Bolivian declaration of war:

1. there are 18 (all no-Chileans and all no-primary sources) books that assert the Bolivian declaration of war
2. under the historians that state it, are two well-respected Peruvian historians (Basadre and F. Denegri L.), and the most famous historians in the English language about the military history of Latin America (W.F.Sater, B.W. Farcau and Sheina)
3. There are problem to fix the date of the Bolivian declaration of war. La Paz was not conected to the telegraph and the news used to be tranported by "chasquis" (running man) in 6 days from La Paz to Tacna and then from Tacna to the world by ship (Caldera, Chile) or telegraph (Lima). Moreover, in the first week after the Chilean occupation of Antofagasta there was no response of the Bolivian government. Why?. We don't know.
4. There were 2 Bolivian declarations, the first one was on 1. March and the second on 14 or 18 March 1879. Why?, is the 14. March the date of the arrival to Lima and 18. March the date of the arrival to Santiago?. We don't know.
5. Both Sater and Farcau point to the fact that there two Bdows, a "simple" and a more "formal" declaration but they don't coincide in the dates of the 2. declaration.
6. Sater, Farcau and Basadre have the Bolivian declaration of war as basis for his thoughts about the war, his causes, course and consequences. Therefore it is imposible to doubt about the Bolivian declaration of war whitout to change completly the actual written history of the war of the pacific.
7. The Bolivian declaration of war is asserted by the majority of the historian.

And what to do with the 4 historians that asserts there was no declaration at all?. It depends. It depends of how much original research we want to do. I refuse to participate in a "WP research group War of the Pacific". It would be very interesting but I don't have so much time and we could not publish the results in the English Wikipedia. Anyway, they are a footnote in the history and that should remain also in Wikipedia.

I abstain to made a concrete proposal, my English is still not perfect. Best regards, --Keysanger (what?) 11:23, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Discussion

Okay... a few things... definitely Marshal should remove primary sources from his list. Keysanger, your sources (viii) and (x) are the same source. And I don't regard Sater as a reliable source while he appears to make contradictory statements. Are you able to declare the nationality of all your sources just as you've revealed the nationality of Marshal's? Alex Harvey (talk) 12:59, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Okay I have realised why I was confused about the Sater quote. While he says the March 5 decree was not a formal declaration of war, he says Daza declared war on March 18th. I had been assuming this was after the Chilean declaration but now I see that Chile declared war on 5th April. So I withdraw this, Sater is definitely consistent throughout with Keysanger's position. Alex Harvey (talk) 14:15, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Alex, Bolivia did'nt declare war to Chile in March 18, 1879; I don't have any single reference of such statement in any other book apart from Sater, in fact the only document taken by the Chilean Goverment as a "Declaration of War is the Decree of March 1, 1879, and this document says (in Spanish):

Considerando:

Que el Gobierno de Chile ha invadido de hecho el territorio nacional, sin observar las reglas del Derecho de Gentes, ni las prácticas de los pueblos civilizados, expulsando violentamente a las autoridades y nacionales recidentes en el departamento de Cobija.

Que el Gobierno de Bolivia se encuentra en el deber de dictar medidas enérgicas que la gravedad de la situación, sin apartarse, no obstante, de los principios que consagra el derecho público de las naciones.

Decreto:

Articulo 1° Queda cortado todo comercio y comunicación con la República de Chile mientras dure la guerra que ha promovido a Bolivia.
Articulo 2° Los chilenos residentes en el territorio boliviano serán obligados a desocuparlo en el término de dies dias, contados desde la notificación que se les hiciere por la autoridad pública nacional, pudiendo llevar consigo sus papeles privados, su equipaje y articulos de menaje mayor.
Articulo 3° La expulsión ordenada en el artículo anterior sólo podrá ser suspendida en el término que fuera estrictamente indispensable por causa de enfermedad u otro impedimento grave, a juicio de la autoridad.
Articulo 4° Se procederá por las autoridades respectivas al embargo bélico de las propiedades muebles e inmuebles pertenecientes a los súbditos chilenos, en el territorio de la República, con excepción de los objetos designados en el articulo 2°.

Las empresas mineras pertenecientes a chilenos o en las que hubiere accionistas de esa nacionalidad podrán continuar su giro, a cargo de un administrador nombrado por la autoridad o con la intervención de un representante del fisco, según creyera aquélla más conveniente.
Articulo 5° Los productos netos de las empresas mineras perteneciente a chilenos o a las acciones correspondientes a los mismos, serán empozados en el tesoro nacional.
Articulo 6° El embargo mandado por este Decreto se convertirá en consfiscación definitiva, siempre que el género de las hostilidades que ejerzan las fuerzas chilenas requieran una retaliación enérgica de parte de Bolivia.

Articulo 7° Se desconoce toda transferencia de intereses chilenos, hecha con posterioridad al 8 de noviembre último, en cuya fecha el Gobierno chileno declaró nulo el tratado de 1874, debiendo considerarse como simulado todo contrato que se hubiere pactado a este respecto.

El ministro de Gobierno y Relaciones Exteriores cuidará de la publicación y ejecución de este Decreto.

Fuente: Historia de Las Fronteras de Chile, page 65-66

As you can read, the text doesn't include the sentence: "La Républica de Bolivia declara la guerra a Chile", in fact, the decree establish than its instructions are only valid until the state-of-war persist between Bolivia and Chile, and this measures can be reverted or become permanent in function to the escalation of the hostilities, clearly initiated by the Chilean Republic. This decree cannot be interpretated as a "war declaration", that is the Chilean version of the fact since the war and here in Wikipedia we have the duty to show the fact as they really was, not sustain a lie initiated more than a hundred years ago. Greetings. --Cloudaoc (talk) 15:39, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

I will reply with four points:

1. Wikipedia has a strict policy regarding Primary Source (Read WP:PRIMARY). All of you can read it, so I won't post it here. I am using all of my primary sources correctly, quoting them directly word-by-word. An excerpt from the policy: "A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements that any educated person, with access to the source but without specialist knowledge, will be able to verify are supported by the source. For example, an article about a novel may cite passages to describe the plot, but any interpretation needs a secondary source." At no point am I "interpreting" the primary sources. Therefore, Alex and Keysanger, I will not remove any of these sources from the list.
2. Alex, please read the dates. Daza's decree was on March 1st of 1879 (01/05/1879). The base argument is that Bolivia declared war on Chile on March 1st. However, several of Keysanger's sources provide different dates, or no dates at all. If Keysanger wants to prove that March 1st is when Daza declared war, it's only logical that his sources explicitly state: "On March 1st, Daza/Bolivia declared war." If they don't, then they are not favoring his position at all. Otherwise Keysanger must come up with a different proposal of when Bolivia declared war.
3. Sater is not consistent with Keysanger. He clearly states that the March 1st decree was "apparently not a declaration of war". That's exactly the same thing my sources state. Did Bolivia declare war on a later date? Possibly, I am not contesting that possibility.
4. My argument is that nothing important (no declaration of war) happened on March 1st. My sources, ix to xv, all mention the Chilean declaration of war of April 5, 1879. These sources completely ignore the March 1st date, and instead focus on other causes for the start of war. Hence, they cannot be discarded.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 15:48, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

In the end, what does this all end up in? Nothing. I have already made a proposal paragraph, but Keysanger ignores it. Instead of trying to reach consensus, he is still trying to fight against my sources. He still wants to impose his POV on the article.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 15:48, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Analyzing Daza's March 1st declaration of war sources of Keysanger

Extended content

N William F. Sater in "Andean Tragedy", states: Clearly states that March 1st was "apparently not a declaration of war". N "Chile and the War of the Pacific"‎ by William F. Sater: "Andean Tragedy" is his most recent work. Unless "Chile and War of the Pacific" has anything relevant that "Andean Tragedy" doesn't have, this source is useless. N William Jefferson Dennis "Documentary History of the Tacna-Arica dispute, University of Iowa studies in the social sciences, Vol. 8": Bolivian territory had been invaded by Chile, therefore Bolivia was in a state of war. Being in a state of war does not equal "declaring war". For example, the USA didn't declare war on Vietnam, and yet the Vietnamese were in a state of war. N "Latin America's Wars: The age of the caudillo, 1791-1899" By Robert L. Scheina: March 18? Right month, wrong day. Y "Wars and Peace Treaties, 1816-1991", By Erik Goldstein, page 182: As result of this action Bolivia declared war on Chile (1.March) N "The history of Chile" By John Lawrence Rector: When did Bolivia declare war? No date. N onwar.com: Again, no date. Y country-data.com: Bolivia, in alliance with Peru, declared war on Chile on March 1', ... N andrewclem.com: Right month, no day. Y globalsecurity.com: Bolivia, in alliance with Peru, declared war on Chile on March 1 N Encarta: No date N "The geopolitics of security in the Americas: hemispheric denial from Monroe ..." by Martin Sicker: February 14? This source is completely off-date. N "A history of Chile‎" - Page 326, by Luis Galdames, Isaac Joslin Cox - History - 1941 - 565 pages: No date. N "The Bolivia-Chile-Peru dispute in the Atacama Desert" by Ronald Bruce St. John, Clive H. Schofield: March 14? Right month, wrong day. N "The Ten Cents War", Bruce W. Farcau, Praeger Publishers, 2000, page 42: Nothing on the March 1st decree. Y"Kleine Geschichte Lateinamerikas", by Hans-Joachim König, Philipp Reclam, Stuttgart, 2009, ISBN 978-3-315-017062-5, page 479: Chilenische Einheiten besetzten die bolivianischen Hafenstadt Antofagasta, in der nur 5% der Bevölkerung bolivianisch waren. Daraufhin erklärte Bolivian am 1. März 1879 den Krieg an. YJosé Antonio Lavalle, "Mi mision en Chile en 1879", Edición, prólogo y notas por Félix Denegri Luna , Lima, Peru, 1979, Instituto de Estudios Histórico-Marítimos del Perú. (José Antonio Lavalle was the Peruvian envoy to Chile to mediate during the crisis and Félix Denegri Luna was a well known Peruvian historian [31]) In the Prolog to the book of the Peruvian envoy to Chile to "mediate" during the crisis, Félix Denegri Luna explains in aprox. 65 pages the situation of the three countries. He wrote in: page XLIII El 1° de marzo Bolivia entró en guerra con Chile page LVIII La declaración esta fechada en La Paz el 1° de Marzo. page LXII Lavalle se indignó cuando se enteró que Daza había declarado la guerra a Chile. La noticia llegada a Santiago dos semanas después ... The text of envoy Lavalle is a primary source, but allow me a transgression of this important rule of Wikipedia only in order to get a vivid view of the situation at that time. Lavalle says in page 84: En la mañana del 18 recibí una carta verbal* del señor ministro Fierro [Chilean Minister for Foreign Affairs] pidiéndome que le viese a las 12 del día siguiente, para tener una conferencia relativa al objeto de mi mision, y pocos momentos después llegó a mis manos un suplemento del "Diario Oficial", en el que se anunciaba que el ministro de relaciones exteriores había recibido desde Tacna, por medio de correos, y desde Caldera por el telegráfo, el decreto expedido por el presidente de Bolivia en 1° del mes de marzo, que seguía, en el cual establecíase por parte de esa nación el "casus belli" con Chile, con todos sus efectos y consequencias NJorge Basadre, "Historia de la Republica, La guerra con Chile": Nothing on the March 1st decree.

Keysanger really needs to get his position straight. Obviously, this is a controversial subject; but it gets even more confusing when the correct dates are not attributed. If he wants to claim that Daza's March 1st decree was a declaration of war, then he must provide sources that demonstrate that on March 1st Daza declared war. From my analysis, only 5 of his sources provide this detail.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 15:48, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Globalsecurity.com, and country-data.com cannot be considered as a reliable sources, because both pages only repeat the content of other sources, without checking its reliability; in fact, both websites don't cite any source at all. Greetings.--Cloudaoc (talk) 18:12, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Globalsecurity.com is reliable. It's not the "most reliable" source available (there are better...such as the historians), but it should not be discarded. Regarding Country-data.com, it also seems reliable since, according to the foreword [32], the information was "prepared by the Federal Research Division of the Library of Congress." The only problem with both is that they don't really cite their sources. They only provide a bibliography, which is just a general list of books which influenced their work...but we don't know which exact part of the book they used. Still, that only confirms that these are not the best of sources, but they are reliable.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 18:46, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

The globalsecurity.com and country-data.com are both the same source i.e. word for word say the same thing so one of them at least must be removed from the list. Alex Harvey (talk) 01:38, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Marshal et al., Keysanger has written above There were 2 Bolivian declarations, the first one was on 1st March and the second on 14th or 18th March 1879. Why? The 14th March is the date of the arrival to Lima and 18th March the date of the arrival to Santiago? We don't know. So even if the 1st March was less than a formal declaration of war historians seem to agree that there was a formal declaration on 14th or 18th. It's not obvious to me why there would be confusion but there obviously is. For the most part I think Keysanger's analysis of the sources presented so far is fair and accurate. On primary sources, it is true that we are allowed to use them to some extent but the issue at hand here is what the reliable secondary sources say. When determining appropriate weight we only care about the weight as found in reliable secondary sources. Alex Harvey (talk) 01:48, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Keysanger's sources must be divided according to the dates. That way we will be able to see which historians favor each date. Also, Keysanger's explanation about the "date of arrival to Lima" is his own opinion on the subject (unless he provides a source which explains this matter). His analysis is anything but fair or accurate. All of my alleged "primary sources", are also secondary sources (with the exception being the US Ambassador). Caivano and Soldan, for example, are historians and in their books (which you can access through the links I provided in my list) they reference their material with primary sources. Moreover, their information is supported by both Sater and Lizon (both of them explain that the March 1 decree was not a declaration of war).--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 02:27, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Something to note, regarding the dates, is that by this point the telegraph existed. Peru and Chile had telegraph lines which connected each other, hence why Peru declared casus foederis of the Alliance a mere day after Chile declared war. It's funny how Keysanger tries to claim that it would take 4 days for information from Lima to reach Santiago. When important events, such as war, were declared, the South American governments were notified rather quickly. The "Chasqui" were from the days of the Inca Empire.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 03:06, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

As Keysanger said, we are not supposed to do original research so he's right that it's not his job to explain why there are various dates in the sources for a BDoW. As I said at my talk page if the March 1 decree was not a BDoW then that's fine, but the article needs to add something like, "However, on 14th or 18th March[footnote could explain disagreement], Daza made a formal declaration of war[cite]." It can't present a version of history stating that Chile was the first declare war if in fact a majority of historians believe Chile's April 5 declaration was a reciprocation of an earlier Bolivian declaration of war. Alex Harvey (talk) 03:48, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

It doesn't make sense to "study" Daza's article. It is original research. For example, what says the article 1. of Daza's decree?:

Articulo 1° Queda cortado todo comercio y comunicación con la República de Chile mientras dure la guerra que ha promovido a Bolivia.

Which war did the decree mean?. Either Chile had declared the war or Bolivia declared the war. Chile still didn't declare the war. Chile did it on 5. April after Peru refused to declare neutrality. Do we want to discuss that?. Not me. I refuse to discuss about primary sources. This is the task of historians not of WP editors.

Moreover, if you don't like the first Bolivian declaration of war then use the second one. Don't try to be more intelligent or to know more about the war that Sater, Sheina, Farcau, Besadre and Denegri Luna!.

I think the true intention behind the currrent wording of the article is given by Cloudac:

This decree cannot be interpretated as a "war declaration", that is the Chilean version of the fact since the war and here in Wikipedia we have the duty to show the fact as they really was, not sustain a lie initiated more than a hundred years ago.

They want to re-interpret a fact and and to show the fact as they really was and to terminate with the lie of Sater, Sheina, Farcau, Besadre and Denegri Luna.

Best regards, --Keysanger (what?) 11:57, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

So what happened on March 14/18? Sater asserts that Bolivia made a formal declaration of war. Has the text of this declaration of war been preserved? Alex Harvey (talk) 13:05, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Alex, one of Keysanger's sources explains what happened on March 18. The one by Felix Denegri Luna, using a direct quote from Lavalle (the Peruvian diplomat in Santiago during this time): (In Spanish) En la mañana del 18 recibí una carta verbal* del señor ministro Fierro [Chilean Minister for Foreign Affairs] pidiéndome que le viese a las 12 del día siguiente, para tener una conferencia relativa al objeto de mi mision, y pocos momentos después llegó a mis manos un suplemento del "Diario Oficial", en el que se anunciaba que el ministro de relaciones exteriores había recibido desde Tacna, por medio de correos, y desde Caldera por el telegráfo, el decreto expedido por el presidente de Bolivia en 1° del mes de marzo, que seguía, en el cual establecíase por parte de esa nación el "casus belli" con Chile, con todos sus efectos y consequencias.

Translation into English: "In the morning of the [March] 18th, I received a verbal letter from minister Fierro [Chilean Minister of Foreign Affairs] asking me to see him at 12:00 the next day, in order to have a conference relating the objective of my mission, and a few moments later came to my hands a supplement of the "Diario Oficial" ["Official Diary"], in which it was announced that the Minister of Foreign Relations had received from Tacna, through correspondence, and from Caldera through telegraph, the decree made by Bolivia's president on March 1st, in which it established from that nation the "casus beli" with Chile, with all its effects and consequences."

Alex, you ask "What happened on March 14/18?" The answer, according to Keysanger's source, is that Chile became aware of the March 1st decree. Only Sater claims there was a "formal declaration", while Scheina claims that "on March 18 Bolivia declared war and confiscated all Chilean property." The problem is that Bolivia confiscated Chilean property on March 1st, so is Scheina also refering to the March 1st decree? Now do you fully understand why the dates are so important?--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 15:26, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

It's hard to believe that Sater and others would agree with this analysis and still maintain that Bolivia formally declared war on 18th March. Keysanger? Alex Harvey (talk) 07:30, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Please allow me to add that my USA ambassador primary source (Richard Gibbs), also mentions how the March 1st decree was published on March 18 (South Pacific Times). Sater is the only historian I know who claims that a "formal" declaration of war took place on March 18, so I don't see who are the "others"? Scheina states that "on March 18 Bolivia declared war and confiscated all Chilean property in Bolivia," but the only mention of property confiscation took place in the March 1st decree. Jorge Basadre uses the exact wording as Lavalle, attributing March 18 as the date the Daza's decree arrived in Chile through mail and telegraph. At no point does Basadre claim that Bolivia declared war on March 18. Therefore, at most only Sater and Scheina talk about war on the 18th.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 14:48, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

It is not only hard to believe that MarshalN20 knows more about the war then Profesor W. F. Sater. His efforts are useless. I cite Wikipedia:No original research:

This page in a nutshell: Wikipedia does not publish original thought: all material in Wikipedia must be attributable to a reliable, published source. Articles may not contain any new analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position not clearly advanced by the sources.

MarshallN20's divagations not only are a new analisys or synthesis of published materials, they contradict them. Best regards, --Keysanger (what?) 15:19, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

I am not placing myself on a position where "I know more than Sater". However, you seem to think that his word is final and that everyone should bow down to him. So far, Sater has: (1) Agreed that the March 1st decree was not a declaration of war and (2) Is the only historian who claims that Bolivia "formally declared war" on March 18.

1. What other historians aside from Sater and Scheina attribute a declaration of war to March 18?
2. I am using your own source (from Felix Denegri Luna). At all times I use direct quotes from the primary sources. No "analysis" or "synthesis". All the primary sources clearly explain that, on March 18, the March 1st decree was published in Santiago.

Oh, and you still haven't answered Alex's question as to what, according to you, happened on March 18. Stop trying to evade the central argument.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 15:33, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Marshal in that we need to know more about March 18 than we seem to so far in order to write the article properly. From the sources I've seen so far, a justified wording would be, "According to W.F. Sater, Bolivia made a formal declaration of war on March 18". If you want the article to state as a fact that Bolivia formally declared war on March 18 then we need more evidence. Alex Harvey (talk) 08:30, 31 July 2011 (UTC) I've read Keysanger's sources again and I see the picture clearer. I think he is right and that without further evidence something along the lines of his wording should go in. Alex Harvey (talk) 16:32, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

"Bolivia declared war...but we are not really sure when" is by no means a clear solution to this controversial topic. The March 1 decree is the most discussed (majority) in both sides of the argument; it's also the one which the Chilean government attributes as a declaration of war. The March 14/18 dates are minority views, with no documented evidence of a declaration of war; the only explanation is provided by Lavalle and Basadre, which claim this is when the March 1 decree is published in Chile. That's what is known from these sources and that's what should be placed in the article to achieve the NPOV.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 17:28, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Marshal, the reason I changed my view is that I carefully re-read Keysanger's sources. They include: (i) Sater "Two weeks after the Chilean occupation of Antofagasta, he declared that Chile had imposed "a state of war" on Bolivia. Apparently this decree did not constitute a formal declaration of belligerence, which he announced on 18 March"; (iii) William Jefferson Dennis "On March 14 Bolivia advised representatives of foreign powers that a state of war existed with Chile"; (iv) Robert L. Scheina "On March 18 Bolivia declared war and confiscated all Chilean property in Bolivia and under the terms of a secret treaty ..."; (vii) Martin Sicker "and Bolivia declared war on 14 February 1879" ('February' is probably a typo?); (xiv) Ronald Bruce St. John et al "Once Bolivia declared war on March 14 ..."; (xv) Bruce W. Farcau "... the formal declaration would not be forthcomming until 14 March." (xviii) Jorge Besadre, "El dí­a 18 de marzo se abrió un nuevo perí­odo de la misión Lavalle. Ese dí­a fue recibido en Santiago, desde Tacna por correo y desde Caldera por telégrafo el decreto expedido por el Presidente Daza y notificado al cuerpo diplomático el 14 de marzo estableciendo el casus belli con Chile con todos sus efectos y consecuencias, junto con otros decretos de ruptura de relaciones mientras durara la guerra y de expulsión y confiscación de bienes chilenos en Bolivia." It seems to me that these sources are saying not just that Chile became aware of the March 1 decree on March 14, but that on this day Bolivia made further decrees, and also advised foreign powers that a state of war now existed. That seems to be the mainstream view. Moreover, you can't claim that sources which assert that Bolivia declared war but don't mention a date (e.g. Encarta) don't support Keysanger's position, because they do. What appears to be a minority view is the view that Bolivia never declared war at all. Without any support for this view from non Bolivian sources I believe this should be treated as a minority view. Alex Harvey (talk) 03:56, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the explanation. However, I would like to make note of two things: (1) The term "state of war existed" does not equal a Bolivian declaration of war. According to Bolivia, Chile imposed a state of war upon them when they invaded their territory. That's what they advised to foreign representatives, according to the sources. (2) Lutz, Mansfield, Allcock, and Keen are just a few of the Western historians which disregard any March date as relevant to the course of events; how should we deal with these sources which attribute Chile as the primary aggressor and not Bolivia? Best of wishes.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 04:15, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Proposal

We have the same problem like editors of the death of Salvador Allende, John Kennedy, Osama Bin Laden, etc. There is little or no evidence about the circumtances of their death but all serious historians say they are death. There is no reason to say, "John Kennedy is probably alive because we don't know how many snipers killed him". In the same way, there is no reason to write "Author XYZ says Kennedy is death". He is death, all authors say it, they differ in the circumtances of his death.

So lets us say what we know, and abstain to make a digression.

I propound for:

"Lede":

In the middle of March Daza declared war and Chile soon learned that Peru and Bolivia had a secret alliance. These revelations resulted in a Chilean declaration of war on Peru and Bolivia after Peru refused to declare neutrality.

for "Crisis":

On February 27 Bolivian legislature issued an autorization for a declaration of war. On March 1, 1879, Daza issued a decree which prohibited all commerce and communications with Chile "while the state-of-war provoked upon Bolivia lasts", provided Chileans ten days to leave Bolivian territory, unless gravely ill or handicapped, with their personal belongings and documentation, embargoed Chilean furniture, real property, and mining produce, allowed Chilean mining companies to continue operating under a government-appointed administrator, and provided all embargoes as temporary "unless the hostilities exercised by Chilean forces requires an energetic retalition from Bolivia". Middle of March Daza issued a formal declaration of war. Bolivia then called on Peru to activate their alliance treaty as they felt that the Chilean occupation constituted a casus foederis.

…

After the Bolivian declaration of war was known in Santiago*(ref1), Peru's envoy Lavalle recognized the existence of the secret treaty and the Chilean government asked Peru for neutrality. As the Peruvian government responded that Lima intended to honor its commitments to Bolivia, Chile declared the war to Peru and Bolivia on 5. April 1879

• (ref1)There are discrepancies between historians about the date of the declaration of war.

Best regrads, --Keysanger (what?) 13:39, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

---

I completely disagree with your proposal. You're trying to place this subject on the same level of a conspiracy theory or myth, and that is completely erroneous. Both you and I have provided several sources which discuss the matter and provide their explanations for the events which took place at this time. What has been demonstrated from these sources is that no consensus exists among historians as to whether Bolivia declared war on March 1 or not, and that a few historians (minority per Undue Weight) attribute war to the 14th or 18th. The purpose of Wikipedia is to present all points of view in order to achieve NPOV.

• Lede (lead): It's controversial (split opinion) that Bolivia declared war on Chile on March 1st, which is what the Chilean government claimed. Therefore, it should not be included in the lead section. This goes along the same lines of the "Offensive/Defensive issue". Professional opinion is split, so it's best to avoid it in the lead.
• Crisis: This is the section where all material from the different historians should be presented.

What we know so far:

1. The majority of historians from both our source lists discuss the March 1st date (debate in favor or against);
2. Sater is the only one attributing formal BDoW on March 18, though Scheina also attributes the date to war;
3. Basadre (historian) and Lavalle (sourced from Felix Denegri Luna) explain that what happened on March 18 was that Daza's March 1st decree was published in Chile;
4. St. John and Sicker propose a March 14 date. This one has the least weight.

Based on these sources, I propose the following paragraph for the Crisis section:

Daza's decree is a controversial subject in the history of the conflict. Chile interpreted the decree as a declaration of war, a decision whose legitimacy has faced considerable debate in the historical community. Those in favor of Chile's interpretation, including Erick Goldstein and Hans-Joachim König, explain that decree was a war declaration retaliating Chile's invasion of Bolivian territory. This group suggests that Bolivia's declaration of war tried to prevent Chile from receiving further military equipment, and, according to Jorge Basadre, also tried to prevent Peru's diplomatic mediation from succeeding. Those against Chile's interpretation, including Tommaso Caivano and William F. Sater, explain that the decree was nothing more than a security measure given Chile's military invasion. This group suggests that Chile, in need of a justification for its occupation of Bolivia, purposely distorted Daza's decree. Nonetheless, some historians provide different perspectives as to when Bolivia possibly declared war. According to Bruce Farcau, Bolivia's legislature authorized a formal declaration of war on February 27. Farcau, along with Bruce St. John and Martin Sicker, claim that Bolivia then declared war on March 14. According to William Sater and Robert Scheina, Bolivia's declaration of war took place on March 18, but José Antonio de Lavalle (Peruvian senior diplomat and envoy to Chile) writes in his diary that March 18 is the date when Daza's March 1 decree was made public in Chile; a story corroborated by historian Jorge Basadre.

This proposal includes all points of view in the discussion, directly addresses the issue, and lets the reader understand the controversial nature of the situation. No "Bolivia declared war and that's that" kind of idea which Keysanger seems to support.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 16:59, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Besides a lot of original research (like "Chile interpreted…", "This group suggests…", " Those against Chile's interpretation…") primary sources (Tommaso Caivano, José Antonio de Lavalle, Mariano Felipe Paz Soldán), non-sense ( William F. Sater is cited as "the decree was nothing more than a security measure given Chile's military invasion". I don't know where did you get such idea.), fragmentary cites in one sentence ("According to Bruce Farcau, Bolivia's legislature authorized a formal declaration of war on February 27.") etc, etc, etc, the most shattering of your proposal is the undue weight.

If there is one thing we have learnt during the discussion is that the issue of the Bolivian declaration of war is a minor issue under the historians. All references, with the exception of two Bolivians and one Peruvian historian, wrote at most 1 sentence about the date of the Bolivian declaration of war. No more. It is a uninteresting theme for the history. All of them consider the Bdow as a fact. For example Basadre, a Peruvian historian, reflects on the causes, and consequenses of the Bdow but not about the date.

You want to write a botch of 1625 words with 18 references and suddenly nothing in the lede.

Moreover, your proposal eludes the most important thing almost all historians say: there was a Bolivian declaration of war.

Alex, can you make a proposal?. Best regards, --Keysanger (what?) 19:57, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

---

I do not agree with Bolivia having declared war on March 1st, which is discussed by historians in both sides. However, considering Alex wants to take into account the other sources which say Bolivia did declare war but provide no date, there is little else to be done from my part regarding this matter.

That being said, 28 sources from "western" historians declare that the War of the Pacific began with the Chilean invasion of Bolivian territory. This took place on February of 1879. Currently, the article only has the date of "1879" as the start of the war. Unless anyone wishes to challenge this point, the article should be edited accordingly. Here are the sources:

Extended content

Guillermo Cortés Lutz, The War of the Pacific: Grave Errors int he Teaching of History and its Distortion in the Education Systems in Chile, Peru and Bolivia [33]: "The key moment to give the "go" on war starts in the day planned for the auction, Chilean troops, at the command of Colonel Emilio Sotomayor, occupy Antofagasta. Later comes the negative of Peru to maintain its impartiality, Manuel Prado, argues that he has been tied by a secret pact, and with this Chile declares war on Peru and Bolivia on April 5, 1879, without ignoring the invasion manu militari, which was the start of the war." Edward D. Mansfield and Jack L. Snyder, "Electing to Fight: Why Emerging Democracies Go to War" [34], Page 202: "Chile's role as initiator of the War of the Pacific against Peru and Bolivia in 1879, fought over nitrate deposits, demonstrates the dangers of coalition politics in weakly institutionalized states undergoing an incomplete democratic transition." Guillermo I. Castillo-Feliú, Culture and customs of Chile [35], Page 49: "The conflict began in February 1 879, when Chile occupied the port city of Antofagasta." John Robert Victor Prescott and Gillian Doreen Triggs, International frontiers and boundaries: law, politics and geography - Page 97: "Chile started the War of the Pacific that lasted from 1879-1884." William Edmundson, A history of the British presence in Chile: from Bloody Mary to Charles, Page 159: "The Company refused to pay, and the Bolivian government threatened confiscation. Then the war broke out. In February 1879, a small Chilean military force took over the port of Antofagasta and then assumed control of the coastal settlements." The World Book Encyclopedia [36]: "The War of the Pacific began as a quarrel between Bolivia and Chile over control of certain Bolivian nitrate deposits. As a result of the dispute, Chile invaded Bolivia in 1879, marking the start of the war." Harry Adès, The Rough Guide to South America, Page 214: "Chilean forces began the War of the Pacific early next year, occupying the entire Bolivian coastline." Jeremy Black, War in the Nineteenth Century, Page 139: "Chile took the initiative and landed an army at Antofagasta in February 1879, advancing, after the sinking of the main Peruvian warship that October, to overrun the Bolivian Pacific coastline and then to press on to invade southern Peru." Seth Fletcher, Bottled Lightning: Superbatteries, Electric Cars, and the New Lithium Economy, Page 184: "Chile responded by sending five hundred troops to occupy Antofagasta, and the war began." Lars Schoultz, Beneath the United States: a history of U.S. policy toward Latin America, Page 91: "The war begun in early 1879, when Chile seized the Bolivian province of Antofagasta." Clements Robert Markahm, The war between Peru and Chile, 1879-1882, pages 88-89: "The Chilian Government commenced hostile operations as soon as the news from Antofagasta arrived, and seized upon the Bolivian ports of Antofagasta, Cobija, and Tocapilla; the invading troops at the same time marching into the interior, and beginning war by bloodshed at Calama." Josephus Nelson Larned, The New Larned History for Ready Reference, Reading and Research, page 1635: "Chile was, naturally, well aware of the wealth which lay so close to her own doors, and to possess herself thereof, and thus rehabilitate her national fortunes, she addressed herself to war. The occasion for war was easily found. Bolivia was first attacked, a difficulty which arose at her port of Antofagasta, with respect to her enforcement of a tax upon some nitrate works carried on by a Chilean company, affording a good pretext." Frederick Pike, The Modern History of Peru, page 142: "Chile dispatched an amphibious force to occupy Antofagasta and the War of the Pacific had begun." Eric W. Cox, Why enduring rivalries do--or don't--end, "The conflict that would lead to the War of the Pacific began when Chile began encroachments onto Bolivian territory, including the seizure of Bolivia's only ports, Antofagasta, Cobija and Tocapilla, in 1878." Emily Hatchwell, et al., Travellers survival kit: South America: "Chile was so keen to exploit these that it extended mining operations northwards into Bolivia and Peru, and in 1879 launched an all-out invasion. Thus began the War of the Pacific." Donald Marquand Dozer, Latin America: an interpretive history: "On the date of the announced sale Chilean troops entered Antofagasta, occupied the Chilean properties, and raised the Chilean flag. Thus began the so-called "War of the Pacific," which was to result in a great enhancement of Chile." James Read, The Rough Guide to Bolivia: "Early the next year Chilean forces began the War of the Pacific, occupying the entire Bolivian coastline - where the population was in any case already two-thirds Chilean - and then invading Peru, which was allied to Bolivia." Joseph O'Grady, How the Irish Became Americans: "In February, 1879 Chile started the War of the Pacific to control certain nitrate deposits."

In other words, Chile started the War of the Pacific. Best regards.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 20:07, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the sources MarshallN20, let us continue to discuss about the Bolivian declaration of war. Best regards, --Keysanger (what?) 20:39, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

This is part of the Bolivian declaration of war discussion. Considering most historians attribute Chile's invasion of Antofagasta as the start of the war of the Pacific, and Bolivia's "declaration of war" as a response to Chile's invasion, then there exists an order of how things should be presented in the lead and how they should be changed within the article. Currently, the article is written in such a way where the start of the war is attributed to the Chilean declaration of war on April 5; which should be fixed based on the information provided by 28 reliable sources. Best of wishes.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 21:36, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Nobody doubts that Chile took the initiative of the military operations. But we are discussing now about the diplomatic side of the conflict, in this concrete case the Bolivian declaration of war. Let us finish that question. --Keysanger (what?) 21:45, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

It's not about the initiative of the military operations. The sources explicit state that Chile started the war'. Regardless of the Chilean or Bolivian DoWs, the War of the Pacific began on February 14, 1879, when Chile invaded Antofagasta. In either case, Chile is the primary aggressor. Best of wishes.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 21:58, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Conclusions: Bolivia DoW

It seems most sources agree that Bolivia declared war in March. The problem is that, for every single date, a contrasting explanation is provided:

• March 1: One side argues pro-war, the other side argues that Chile, with all intents and purposes, claimed it was a DoW (when it wasn't).
• March 14: Some historians argue pro-war, but others explain that what happened here was Bolivia making a "War circular". Not sure if that's the correct English translation, but it's definition is that of telling foreign powers a state of war exists between two nations. In Bolivia's case, they told Europeans and the US that war existed between Bolivia and Chile. However, this is not a declaration of war, much less a "formal" one.
• March 18: Some historians argue pro-war, but Basadre/Lavalle explain that what happened on this date was that the March 1st decree was published on Santiago (Chile).

I am willing to write another consensus proposal based on these points, but I would like to know (from Keysanger mainly) whether he agrees or disagrees with these points. Also, any suggestions as to how this may be included are welcome.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 13:10, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

I tend to agree with Keysanger throughout here. There is a minor inconsistency on the dates in the sources but this likely follows from disinterest than true disagreement. I feel that a simple narrative like Keysanger's is appropriate and discussion of various confusions could probably occur in a footnote. The important point is that nearly all sources make a simple statement of a simple fact that Bolivia declared war. If we want to simply avoid the issue we could also just say nothing about "Bolivia declared war" and simply say that on March 14 Bolivia announced that a state of war existed between herself & Chile. I think what is most important here is that we don't manufacture a controversy in the mind of the reader that may not really exist. Alex Harvey (talk) 01:15, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

The March 14 date is the only one which is undisputed, so I agree with your proposal. In the footnote we can discuss the other dates. In this case, what should we do about the mention for Daza's March 1 decree?--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 02:40, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree also. Aley, please, write the proposal. I am sure you have understood the core of the question. --Keysanger (what?) 10:03, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

I'll try, although I suspect there are many fine details of the history I haven't understood:

On February 27 the Bolivian legislature issued the authorization for a declaration of war, although it was not immediately announced. Instead, on March 1, Daza issued a decree which prohibited all commerce and communications with Chile "while the state-of-war provoked upon Bolivia lasts", provided Chileans ten days to leave Bolivian territory unless gravely ill or handicapped, embargoed Chilean furniture, property, and mining produce, allowed Chilean mining companies to continue operating under a government-appointed administrator, and provided all embargoes as temporary "unless the hostilities exercised by Chilean forces requires an energetic retaliation from Bolivia". Then on March 14, Daza announced to representatives of foreign powers that a state of war now existed between herself and Chile. Bolivia then called on Peru to activate the alliance treaty, arguing that the Chile's invasion constituted a casus foederis. Chile, meanwhile, called on Peru to remain neutral.

I don't see any need to say anything else about the March 1 decree. Alex Harvey (talk) 12:27, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree your proposal. Can we write the lede and the Lavalle-mission in "Crisis" right now?. Keysanger (what?) 13:52, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

I disagree; why not? the March 1st Decree is explicit about the actions taken by the Bolivian goverment after the Chilean invasion of Antofagasta, this information is important for the context and latter events of the war. Greetings.Cloudaoc (talk) 14:34, 3 August 2011 (UTC) To Alex, sorry, but my original text was somehow cutted or lost when I posted. I'll clarify it as soon as remembered the original answer (but I think is not longer necessary). Greetings.--Cloudaoc (talk) 21:05, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Two points I disagree with:

1. How many historians mention the February 27 date? Could Keysanger provide more sources for it, because I really do not think that one source is legitimate enough to claim that the Bolivian legislature did something on February 27.
2. Chile "called on Peru to remain neutral" after Peru "revealed" (I will argue later that Chile already knew) the existence of the Mutual Defense treaty during the Lavalle mission.

The rest is, good. I like how you only mention what exactly happened and not what the authors assume happened. Best of wishes.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 14:31, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Regarding the Feb 27 date, I am led to believe the source is a reliable historian, and also a Peruvian. I would also think that anything done by the Bolivian legislature would be recorded - even if it was 150 years ago? - so I'd be surprised to find that a historian was wrong. I guess my question should be, is there really any reason to doubt this as a fact? That said, again, it's probably not all that important in the scheme of things. To Cloudaoc, I don't understand what you are saying. Could you clarify? Alex Harvey (talk) 12:07, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Bruce Farcau is not Peruvian (at least not that I know of). For me, Farcau's claim raises the WP:REDFLAG problem. Out of all historians listed, Farcau is the only one who mentions anything about the Bolivian legislature on February 27. As you mention, if anything done by the Bolivian legislature over 150 years ago should still be on record, then why is Farcau the only one who knows about it? Was William Sater's "Andean Tragedy", published in 2007, purposely ignorant of the Bolivian legislature's decision? Were historians for 150 years unaware of the Bolivian legislature's decision? Too many Red Flags rise at this point and time and, if Keysanger cannot find more sources certifying this view, then it should not be written as a commonly accepted fact. Note: Other than this point and the other, I have no problem with your proposal; and this would place a good end to the discussion.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 14:53, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Farcau call it "authorization from legislature", Jefferson [37] call it "general war manifesto" and probably he took the names from its (primary) source: Senate Executive Documents, 47th Congress, 1st Session Vol. IV, Doc 79, p. 201. Also Herbert Millington in his work 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, asserts in page 25: "The Bolivian war manifesto was issued on February 27, 1879, …" (his primary sources are the correspondence between US-Minister in Bolivia Pettis to US-Secretary of State Evarts, June 6, 1879). We shouldn't forget that Bolivia was goberned by a dictator after a coup d'etat and the legislature was only an ornament of Daza.

I would suggest to use "Bolivian war manifesto" instead of "authorization from legislature".

Regarding the "secret", yes, there are historians that assume some level of Chilean knowledge. On the other hand it is very dificult to demostrate that a person knows X. For example Peruvian envoy Lavalle was member of the highest society of Lima, member of the Parlament and Peruvian embassador in Europa but he asserted that he didn't know until 22 March 1879 (Lavalle, 19):Era la primera idea que tenia yo de la existencia de semejante pacto!. Dictator Daza was informed only in Dec 1878 about the secret treaty (Daza que aun no conocia el texto y la trascendencia del tratado…", José de la Riva-Agüero y Osma, cited in Denegri, XLII).

I would agree something like "Some Chilean politicians probably got wind from the treaty before the crisis".

--Best regards, Keysanger (what?) 09:46, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

That would be:

On February 27 was issued in La Paz the general war manifesto with the authorization for a declaration of war, although it was not immediately announced. Instead, on March 1, Daza issued a decree which prohibited all commerce and communications with Chile "while the state-of-war provoked upon Bolivia lasts", provided Chileans ten days to leave Bolivian territory unless gravely ill or handicapped, embargoed Chilean furniture, property, and mining produce, allowed Chilean mining companies to continue operating under a government-appointed administrator, and provided all embargoes as temporary "unless the hostilities exercised by Chilean forces requires an energetic retaliation from Bolivia". Then on March 14, Bolivia announced to representatives of foreign powers that a state of war now existed between herself and Chile and called on Peru to activate the alliance treaty, arguing that the Chile's invasion constituted a "casus foederis". Chile, meanwhile, called on Peru to remain neutral.

Best regards, Keysanger (what?) 10:55, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

If the "general war manifesto" contains a DoW against Chile, this was never announced or published because instead Daza issued the March 1 decree, therefore, the article cannot affirm than general war manifesto "was not immediately announced" because it was never announced, unless the general war manifesto contains the same declarations than the March 1 decree. And what was exactly declared in this manifesto? Do you have a facsimil copy or transcription of this one, or is just a reference? Greetings. --Cloudaoc (talk) 14:02, 5 August 2011 (UTC) Keysanger the "general war manifesto" is not other than the widely know "Proclama del Corvo" (Corvo Speech), published in February 27 in the Bolivian newspaper "El Comercio", which was archived by the Bolivian Senate, not issued by this, and this speech do not contain any declaration of war, in fact, the Millington text do not affirm in any part than this manifesto was in fact a DoW. Do you have a transcription of the Farcau text about this issue? Because is necessary confirm than both sources are talking about the same document. And even more the Millington text contains in its page 70, the formal war circular issued by the Bolivian Minister of Foreign Affairs, which sustain the initial Bolivian affirmation than exists an state-of-war with Chile, just like the state-of-war between Peru and Ecuador in the Cenepa War. Can you explain or sustain your initial affirmation further? Greetings.--Cloudaoc (talk) 14:26, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

I will only note a few things...

1. Farcau remains the only one stating anything about the "Bolivian legislature" doing something on February 27. Please provide additional sources to confirm whether Farcau is correct. If you cannot provide the information, then it cannot be placed as an accepted fact.
2. William Jefferson Dennis writes (Page 66): "[Daza] published his proclamations February 25 and 27." Further down he provides the text in English. Jefferson Dennis does not support Farcau's claim that the "Bolivian legislature" proclaimed anything or issued anything on February 27.
3. I investigated what Cloudaoc presented and found it 100% accurate. The text of February 27 was not a "Bolivian general war manifesto", but rather yet another one of Daza's proclamations. Name of the proclamation: Proclama del Corvo (Corvo is a type of curved knife).

According to Chilean diplomat and historian Emilio Ruiz-Tagle Orrego [38] (Published 1992): "In effect, on February 27, Daza made public a proclamation in which he energetically denounced the Chilean "agression", made by "peoples depraved by misery and vice, who comitt murders with the corvo knife".

This web [39] (in Spanish) has the "Corvo Proclamation" as well, dated February 27 and proclaimed by Hilarion Daza (Not "Bolivia" or the "Bolivian legislature").

• Regarding the "secret" part of the treaty, this is a point I would like to further discuss on its own.

I would agree to the following paragraph...

On February 27, Daza issued a proclamation which informed Bolivians about the invasion and called for patriotic support against the invaders. Later, on March 1, he issued a decree which prohibited all commerce and communications with Chile "while the state-of-war provoked upon Bolivia lasts", provided Chileans ten days to leave Bolivian territory unless gravely ill or handicapped, embargoed Chilean furniture, property, and mining produce, allowed Chilean mining companies to continue operating under a government-appointed administrator, and provided all embargoes as temporary "unless the hostilities exercised by Chilean forces requires an energetic retaliation from Bolivia". Then on March 14, Bolivia announced to representatives of foreign powers in Lima that a state of war now existed between herself and Chile; and called on Peru to activate the alliance treaty, arguing that the Chile's invasion constituted a casus foederis.

That is all.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 17:23, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Y I´ll agree with this proposal. Greetings.Cloudaoc (talk) 19:50, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

(continue)

The proposal eludes to say what the historians write: the 1. March Bolivian declaration of war. Whatever occured on 1. March, Chile, Perú and, crucial for Wikipedia, the historians called it a "declaration of war". If we sidestep the 1. March Bolivian declaration of war then we have to sidestep the 5. April Chilean declaration of war and also the the 6. April Peruvian declaration of war. We will bark up the wrong tree. --Best regards, Keysanger (what?) 15:58, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Except for the first sentence, the rest of the proposal is what Alex proposed word-by-word (which you openly agreed just a few lines above). The March 1 decree is not "crucial" to any aspect of the conflict. (1) Chile "declared war" when Peru refused to "declare neutrality". (2) Peru declared war only when Chile declared war first. The March 1st decree didn't do anything important at all; it's just one out of a series of decrees/proclamations which Daza made following the Chilean invasion of Bolivia. Hence, there is no need to include it on the lead either.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 16:19, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

I propouse:

On February 27 the Bolivian legislature issued the authorization for a declaration of war, although it was not immediately announced. Instead, on March 1, Daza issued a declaration of war on Chile and prohibited all commerce and communications with Chile "while the state-of-war provoked upon Bolivia lasts", provided Chileans ten days to leave Bolivian territory unless gravely ill or handicapped, embargoed Chilean furniture, property, and mining produce, allowed Chilean mining companies to continue operating under a government-appointed administrator, and provided all embargoes as temporary "unless the hostilities exercised by Chilean forces requires an energetic retaliation from Bolivia". Then on March 14, Bolivia announced to representatives of foreign powers in Lima that a state of war now existed between herself and Chile. Bolivia then called on Peru to activate the alliance treaty, arguing that the Chile's invasion constituted a casus foederis. Chile, meanwhile, called on Peru to remain neutral.

--Best regards, Keysanger (what?) 12:01, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

1. The Bolivian legislature did not authorize anything on February 27.
2. On February 27, Hilarion Daza publicly announced ("Corvo Proclamation") the Chilean invasion of Bolivia, and told Bolivians to unite against the invaders.
3. Chile requested neutrality when Peru accepted the existence of the Mutual Defense Treaty (Not when Bolivia called for "casus foederis"), during the mediation.

What is so difficult to understand from these things?--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 14:11, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

To Marshal above, I'm not sure that Farcau being the only historian (we know of) to mention legislative authorisation for a Bdow on Feb 27 is a red flag. For a red flag, I feel that you'd need to make an argument for why you think the Bolivian legislature probably didn't do any such thing on Feb 27, or show that another reliable source actually contradicts this. Now Daza's proclamation of Feb 27 tells us nothing about what Daza's legislature did that day. Daza presumably did a number of things on Feb 27. It sounds to me that for Daza to formally and legally declare war, he firstly needed his legislature to give him authorisation to do this - is this right? In any case, the fact that Farcau seems to be the only source mentioning perhaps it's not important. Perhaps we could drop the sentence because it's just not important? Alex Harvey (talk) 09:12, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

I think we can agree in:

On March 1, Bolivia issued a declaration of war on Chile and prohibited all commerce and communications with Chile "while the state-of-war provoked upon Bolivia lasts", provided Chileans ten days to leave Bolivian territory unless gravely ill or handicapped, embargoed Chilean furniture, property, and mining produce, allowed Chilean mining companies to continue operating under a government-appointed administrator, and provided all embargoes as temporary "unless the hostilities exercised by Chilean forces requires an energetic retaliation from Bolivia". Then on March 14, Bolivia announced to representatives of foreign powers in Lima that a state of war now existed between herself and Chile. Bolivia then called on Peru to activate the alliance treaty, arguing that the Chile's invasion constituted a casus foederis. Chile, meanwhile, called on Peru to remain neutral. Peru refused.

this considered MarshallN20 objections and, as I hope, it is a good agreement.

Often is it hard to get an agreement about the terms of reference, as I would like it, instead we agree about wording for the special case. It is the second best solution. But anyway I accept this wording under the condition that in any place within the article that deals this issue must be done in the spirit of this wording. --Best regards, Keysanger (what?) 11:58, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

@Keysanger, you haven't "considered" any of my objections. I am only objecting to 2 parts of Alex's proposal:

1. The February 27 sentence, due to conflicting sources.
2. The "Peru remain neutral" sentence, due to anachronism. Chile requested neutrality when the Treaty of Mutual Defense was "revealed" by Peru.

Everything else is fine, despite you now seem extremely interested in modifying it (despite previously agreeing to it).

@Alex, my primary argument is that Hilarion Daza witheld all news of the Chilean invasion of Antofagasta due to a carnival going on in Bolivia (In Spanish: [40]). My secondary argument is that Daza did not make a "war proclamation" on February 27, but rather simply made a manifesto which explained to Bolivians the ongoing military invasion and called for their patriotic support. I propose the following paragraph:

News of the Chilean invasion reached Hilarión Daza on February 20, but he decided to postpone its mention until the end of ongoing carnival festitivities. On February 27, Daza made a public manifesto informing Bolivians about the invasion and calling for patriotic support. Later, on March 1, he issued a decree which prohibited all commerce and communications with Chile "while the state-of-war provoked upon Bolivia lasts", provided Chileans ten days to leave Bolivian territory unless gravely ill or handicapped, embargoed Chilean furniture, property, and mining produce, allowed Chilean mining companies to continue operating under a government-appointed administrator, and provided all embargoes as temporary "unless the hostilities exercised by Chilean forces requires an energetic retaliation from Bolivia". Then, on March 14, Bolivia announced to representatives of foreign powers in Lima that a state of war now existed between herself and Chile; and called on Peru to activate the alliance treaty, arguing that the Chile's invasion constituted a casus foederis.

Nothing controversial; simply stating things as they happened (without any controversial opinion). What I'd like to know is why Keysanger does not like this proposal. Why does he want to include that "Chile called on Peru to remain neutral" despite this is anachronistic? Why does he want to change Alex's previous proposal despite previously agreeing to it?--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 15:34, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Your proposal doesn't contain the "declaration of war".

Please take your proposal from 5 August 17:23 :

On February 27, Daza issued a proclamation which informed Bolivians about the invasion and called for patriotic support against the invaders. Later, on March 1, he Bolivia issued a decree which Declaration of war on Chile and prohibited all commerce and communications with Chile "while the state-of-war provoked upon Bolivia lasts", provided Chileans ten days to leave Bolivian territory unless gravely ill or handicapped, embargoed Chilean furniture, property, and mining produce, allowed Chilean mining companies to continue operating under a government-appointed administrator, and provided all embargoes as temporary "unless the hostilities exercised by Chilean forces requires an energetic retaliation from Bolivia". Then on March 14, Bolivia announced to representatives of foreign powers in Lima that a state of war now existed between herself and Chile; and called on Peru to activate the alliance treaty, arguing that the Chile's invasion constituted a casus foederis. Chile, meanwhile, called on Peru to remain neutral. Peru refused.

As you can see I used your proposal, deleted the question of 27 Feb that you don't like and added "declaration of war", plus "Chile, meanwhile, called on Peru to remain neutral. Peru refused".

All that you have accepted. OK?. --Best regards, Keysanger (what?) 19:27, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

I haven't accepted any of your changes. All I have accepted is what Alex Harvey (Not Keysanger) has suggested starting from "On March 1" and ending on "Casus foederis". The only thing "Bolivia" ever did was the March 14 notification of a state of war. Everything else (February 27, March 1) was done by Daza. My proposal includes what happened on February 20, when Daza received news of the invasion, and his response of February 27. Please stop distorting my position.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 20:07, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't accept Keysanger's proposal either, in so far as it goes back to asserting that the March 1 decree was a declaration of war, despite that we seem to have established that the declaration of war was probably on March 14. My hope was that we could simply say that Bolivia announced that a state of war now existed between herself & Chile on March 14 and let the reader draw the obvious conclusion that this was a declaration of war. As far as the Feb 27 date is concerned, I don't agree that Marshal has provided any evidence that throws any doubt onto Farcau's statement that the Bolivian legislature authorised a declaration of war that day. However, the matter could certainly be quickly settled if someone found another source other than Farcau. Alex Harvey (talk) 04:06, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

If Keysanger can provide another source which attributes the Bolivian legislature as having "authorised" a declaration of war, I will not contest its inclusion. That being said, I have provided sources which agree that what happened on February 27 was Daza's Proclamacion del Corvo (or Proclamacion del Cuchillo Corvo), which was nothing more than a manifesto informing Bolivians of the Chilean invasion.

Regarding the DoW, I also agree that March 14 is the uncontested date, and Alex's wording perfectly reflects what the sources present. I once again propose:

News of the Chilean invasion reached Hilarión Daza on February 20, but he decided to postpone its mention until the end of ongoing carnival festitivities. On February 27, Daza made a public manifesto informing Bolivians about the invasion and calling for patriotic support. Later, on March 1, he issued a decree which prohibited all commerce and communications with Chile "while the state-of-war provoked upon Bolivia lasts", provided Chileans ten days to leave Bolivian territory unless gravely ill or handicapped, embargoed Chilean furniture, property, and mining produce, allowed Chilean mining companies to continue operating under a government-appointed administrator, and provided all embargoes as temporary "unless the hostilities exercised by Chilean forces requires an energetic retaliation from Bolivia". Then, on March 14, Bolivia announced to representatives of foreign powers in Lima that a state of war now existed between herself and Chile; and called on Peru to activate the alliance treaty, arguing that the Chile's invasion constituted a casus foederis.

It mentions every single date, and lets the reader decide for themselves what they want. Only the first 2 sentences are different from what Alex proposed early in the discussion. If we can agree to this we will be able to move ahead into other discussion points. Best of wishes.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 04:58, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Regarding I have provided sources which agree that what happened on February 27 was Daza's Proclamacion del Corvo ... which was nothing more than a manifesto informing Bolivians of the Chilean invasion: Once again, I don't understand this point at all. You seem to be saying that because the President, Daza, made a public proclamation on Feb 27, that makes it unlikely that the legislature, which was presumably at least ostensibly independent of Daza, didn't authorise a declaration of war on the same day. Without doubt a lot of things happened on Feb 27 so I'll have to be honest and say I don't find this argument compelling at all - unless I am fundamentally missing something. Alex Harvey (talk) 07:49, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

My apologies Alex, that's not what I meant to express. My argument is to include the "Corvo Proclamation" as it is relevant information (Keysanger doesn't include it in his proposals). My counter-argument for the "Bolivian legislature" issue is the following: If it is true that the Bolivian legislature authorised war, then it should be easy to find more than one source that supports it. Both arguments are separate. If Keysanger manages to prove that the Bolivian legislature did authorize war, then both February 27 events should be mentioned. The part I don't agree with including at all is the sentence where "Chile requested Peru to remain neutral", as this did not take place on March 14 (If we recall, Peru's diplomat Lavalle was still negotiating matters in Chile on March 18).--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 13:24, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

When did Bolivia issue the declaration of war?. --Best regards, Keysanger (what?) 17:19, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

As far I remember, Chile declared war against Bolivia in April 5, 1879; and there is not necessary a mutual declaration of war to establish a formal war between two o more countries. Can you provide any source to sustain than Bolivia explicitly declare war against Chile after the invasion of Antofagasta? Greetings.Cloudaoc (talk) 22:57, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

My understanding is that Alex proposes that the readers decide for themselves whether they want to attribute Bolivia's March 14 "State of War" notification as a declaration of war or not. For me that is the most sensible option since it avoids a long-winded discussion in the main text. Therefore, I agree with Alex, and I believed you (Keysanger) also agreed with him per your earlier statement. What now I don't understand is your (Keysanger's) desperate desire to somewhere include the term "declaration of war"?--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 01:15, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

@Marshal, I agree on your point about dropping "Chile requested Peru to remain neutral" simply because this is already in the article a bit further down (I didn't see it when I proposed this originally). I think your proposal is good and don't have any problem with it myself.
@Keysanger, if Marshal & Cloudaoc are happy with Marshal's proposal it might be a good compromise. Importantly, I find it inconceivable that any reader will detect a difference between the phrases "Bolivia announced that a state of war existed on March 14" and "Bolivia declared war on March 14". Although I find it very hard to believe that Farcau would have asserted that the Bolivian legislature authorised a declaration of war on Feb 27 if it didn't in fact happen, at the same time it might be argued legitimately that if Farcau is the only source to mention it, it may not be important enough to mention. Alex Harvey (talk) 14:15, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

continue 2

MarshalN20's proposal, I repeat, lacks the mainstream knowledge asserted by Historians like Sater, Farcau, Cluny, Besadre, Denegri (from USA, United Kingdom, France and Peru) (among others) that on March 1. there was a Bolivian declaration of war. Wikipedia's editors can't change the mainstream of the histography and are compelled to repeat what the historians say. And they don't say "state of war", they say "declaration of war". Therefore I propose

• On March 1, Bolivia issued a Declaration of war on Chile and prohibited…

I agree on :

• News of the Chilean invasion reached Hilarión Daza on February 20, but he decided to postpone its mention until the end of ongoing carnival festitivities. On February 27, Daza made a public manifesto informing Bolivians about the invasion and calling for patriotic support. '

Regarding "neutral", in no place of MarshallN20's newest version [41] is said that Peru refused to remain neutral. It must be said. Therefore I propose :

• Chile, meanwhile, asked on Peru to remain neutral. Peru refused. --Best regards, Keysanger (what?) 07:39, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

We have already had this discussion and you already agreed with my proposal, and that very clearly was that we do not call the March 1 decree a declaration of war. Sater is explicit that the March 1 decree was not a declaration of war. Moreover it seems very obvious to me from all I have read, including your sources, that the fact of the matter is March 1 wasn't a declaration of war. I already reject the proposal that "Chile, meanwhile, asked on Peru to remain neutral. Peru refused" because, as I just said, this is already in the article, but a bit further down. Alex Harvey (talk) 08:26, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, but I disagree. To write "state of war" would be a clear case of original research because the most of historians, also Sater, agree that there were a Bdow. --Best regards, Keysanger (what?) 11:39, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

It's certainly not original research; source (iii) in your list which you are counting as support for your position reads, "On March 14 Bolivia advised representatives of foreign powers that a state of war existed with Chile. ... Godoi advised President Pinto that this move was to prevent Chile from securing armaments abroad ... Meanwhile over the Andes at La Paz, and it may be said here parenthetically that a single telegraph line might have prevented this war, Daza issued letters of marque against Chile on March 26, and a formal war circular on March 31". Would you be satisfied if we added the letters of marque and formal war circular of March 31? Alex Harvey (talk) 12:45, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Y I'll agree with your proposal Alex, the references would be enough to cover the fact until the Chilean war declaration in April, and as far we noticed (and researched), is the only DoW explicitly stated as such. Greetings.Cloudaoc (talk) 02:48, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Y Needless to say, I agree with Alex as well. Also, as Alex noted, Hilarion Daza seems to have been playing with fire on purpose during this time. Moreover, as Cloudaoc notes, the only explicit declaration of war document in existence is from Chile (April 5). Of course, at no poin in Alex's version is it denied that Bolivia made a declaration of war in March, but rather it tells the story without any biased opinion. In any case, "state of war circulars" are by themselves a sort of declaration of the existence of war. It's much less confusing for readers to simply understand the events rather than for them to be told what to think.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 03:27, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't agree that referring to a Bdow is "biased opinion" but it does appear, if no one can actually find reference to an extant written Bolivian declaration of war, to be interpretation of Bolivia's March 14 announcement to foreign representatives that a "state of war" existed. Of course, there are still those few sources which say Bolivia formally declared war on March 18. In so far as there are reliable sources which make no mention of a Bdow I feel that this compromise should be adopted. If Keysanger is still not happy with this then I will raise an RfC presenting Keysanger's final proposal next to Marshal's and we should all agree to accept once and for all the verdict of uninvolved editors - unless further evidence can be presented of course. Alex Harvey (talk) 05:24, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

@Alex,

Precisely that is the question, the interpretation of the decree of 1. March. WP editors must abtain of interpretations of primary sources. Cloudac and MarshalN20 would like to read the decree and say "look at there, nowhere is the word declaration!, it isn't a declaration of war!" and then they would follow "Under international law there has been never a declaration of war ...". That would be original research. Look at that:

• Cloudac: As you can read, the text doesn't include the sentence: "La Républica de Bolivia declara la guerra a Chile" … or
• MarshalN20: the only explicit declaration of war document in existence is from Chile.

The english Wikipedia accepts interpretations of primary sources only if they are done by secondary sources and the Lowest common denominator of the list of 20 sources is that there was a Bolivian declaration of war. We can vary the date, because there is a lot of uncertainty on account of the non-existing telegraph line to La Paz but not about the core of the message of the historians, there is no confusion: the historians interpret the decree as a declaration of war.

I propose as date "in the Middle March" or "in March". In no way should the reader be mislead to the presuption that there wasn't a Bdow.

--Best regards, Keysanger (what?) 15:31, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

I recognize a uncertainty in my source University of Iowa because I can't find the word declaration. But there are the words Procamation of War, War Circular and General War Manifesto (pages 66, 70, 66). I think one of the three is a War declaration. May be?. --Best regards, Keysanger (what?) 15:43, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Maybe? Your guess about the meaning of these three documents is actually a clear example of WP:ORIGINAL, what you think about them is not relevant, and please refrain to make such affirmation against me, which is absolutely false. There is nothing to interpret in the March 1 decree, the text is plain an clear., and do not state any explicit DoW.Cloudaoc (talk) 16:30, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

The University of Iowa source is the same as the Jefferson Dennis source. Dennis uses "proclamation of war" and "war manifesto" for February 27, and he provides as source the text of the "Corvo Proclamation" (which is neither a proclamation of war or war manifesto). "War circular" is used for March 31 (War circulars are letters sent to foreign governments announcing a state of war and explaining the reasons for the war; in other words, "war circulars" are not declarations of war). How funny you forget to mention these things. I hope you're not again trying to confuse Alex? I'll respond to the rest of your points in number format:

1. No original research is being presented. The current proposal simply presents the events as how the majority of historians agree they took place.
2. Cloudaoc, Alex ,Cambalachero (who wrote a long statement in this talk page), and MarshalN20 (myself) are against writing "Bolivia declared war" and ending it with that. The situation is more complex.
3. At no point in the proposal is it denied that Bolivia declared war.
4. Considerable debate exists among historians regarding the March 1st decree. You keep trying to claim no controversy exists and dismiss my sources as "primary". Wikipedia cannot assert that March 1 was a "declaration of war" because the historical community is also divided on this topic (Including your source from William F. Sater).
5. The opinions of Cloudaoc and myself are nothing more than just that; we are entitled to our POV. The current proposal, based 100% on Alex Harvey's proposal, at no point includes our point of view.
6. Chile is indeed the only country who wrote an official declaration of war. This is not an opinion but a fact. I can provide you with the text of the Chilean declaration of war, but can you provide me the text of the official Bolivian and Peruvian declarations of war? As Cloudaoc noted a while back, a war does not necessarily start with declarations or proclamations. Did the Japanese attack Pearl Harbor prior to declaring war? Did Germany declare war on Poland prior to invading them?
7. As Ramiro Prudencio Lizon writes in La Razon ([42]), telegraph lines were in use at the time. Bolivia did not have them, but Peru did. Hilarion Daza got the news of the Antofagasta invasion from Peru (On February 20-21), and later made its March 14 public from Lima (in Peru). You keep trying to claim that the lack of telegraph lines caused problems with the dates, but this is not the case at all.

4 editors have expressed their opinion in favor of a thorough explanation of the events which will allo the readers to understand the situation on their own. You are the only one who keeps demanding the opposite.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 16:20, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

@Keysanger, because I don't want to spend the rest of my life splitting hairs over this I have proposed an RfC below. I'd like everyone to agree that the RfC itself is fair and then we can hopefully settled the dispute with a vote given to uninvolved editors. Alex Harvey (talk) 14:08, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

The road to the Bdow

We have long discussed about the issue and find out that there was a Bolivian declaration of war but were astonished about the different dates authors assign to this event. There were 4 dates: 27 February, 1., 14. and 18. March 1879.

Alex and Keysanger don't have any trouble understanding the discrepancy in the dates given Boliva's lack of telegraph lines, but how have to be ordered and understand?

The 27. February is not very important because it was only an authorization for the war given by the legislature within a dictature. Only an ornamental question. Moreover 1866 (?), the Bolivian legislature had already issued a similar authorization but nothing occured.

The German book that deals in detail with the question 1.-14. February. It is Gerhard Lang's, "Boliviens Streben nach freiem Zugang zum Meer", Hamburger Gesellschaft für Völkerrecht und Auswärtige Politik, edited by Prof. Dr. Herbert Krüger, Band 6, Hamburg 1966, page 25:

Die peruanisch-chilenischen Verhandlungen waren noch im Gange. Da gab der bolivianische Sonderbevollmächtigte in Perú, Außenminister Serapio Reyes Ortiz, der den Auftrag hatte, von der peruanischen Regierung gemäß Artikel 3 des Bündnisvertrages von 1873 die Anerkennung des casus foederis zu erwirken, namens seiner Regierung dem bei der peruanischen Regierung akkreditierten diplomatischen Korps am 14. März durch Zirkularnote die vom 1. März datierte Kriegserklärung Boliviens an Chile(Fußnote 54) bekannt. Dieser ungewöhnliche Schritt, eine Kriegserklärung auf diese Weise publik zu machen, erklärt sich daraus, daß zu jener Zeit nur wenige Länder in La Paz vertreten waren und die Nachrichtenübermittlung von dort wesentlich längere Zeit benötigte als von Lima aus. Mit der rechtzeitigen Bekanntgabe der Kriegserklärung aber sollten die Auslieferung von Kriegsschiffen, die bei europäischen Werften im Auftrag gegeben worden waren, und weitere Waffenlieferungen an Chile verhindert werden. (Fußnote 54: State papers, Bd. 71, S. 926)

Translation 1:

The Peruvian-Chilean negotiations were still in progress when, on his government's behalf, the Bolivian special plenipotentiary in Peru, foreign minister Serapio Reyes Ortiz, who was commissioned to obtain the Peruvian government's recognition of casus foederis according to article 3 of the 1873 treaty of alliance, announced Bolivia's declaration of war on Chile (Footnote 54), dated March 1 by circular note, to the diplomatic Corps accredited to Peru on March 14. This unusual step, to make public a declaration of war in this fashion, can be explained by the fact that only few countries were represented in La Paz at the time, and communications from there took significantly longer than from Lima. The timely announcement of the declaration of war, however, was supposed to impede the deployment of war ships that had been commissioned to European shipyards, as well as the delivery of weapons to Chile.

Translation 2:

The Peruvian-Chilean negotiations were still in progress. At that time, on his government's behalf, the Bolivian special plenipotentiary in Peru, foreign minister Serapio Reyes Ortiz announced Bolivia's declaration of war on Chile (Footnote 54), dated March 1 by circular note, to the diplomatic Corps accredited to Peru on 14. March. (Reyes Ortiz had been commissioned to obtain the Peruvian government's recognition of casus foederis according to article 3 of the 1873 Treaty of Alliance.) The unusual step of making public a declaration of war in this fashion can be explained by the fact that only few countries were represented in La Paz at the time, and communications from there took significantly longer than from Lima. The timely announcement of the declaration of war, however, was meant to impede the deployment of warships that had been commissioned from European shipyards, as well as the delivery of weapons to Chile.

The information given in the paragraph explains the relationship between the declaration of war issued by Daza in La Paz on 1. March and the anouncement of Bolivian foreign minister Reyes in Lima on 14. March. Lacking enough international resonance from the declaration in La Paz they declared it also in Lima in order to stop delivery of weapons to Chile.

About the 18. March, Jose Lavalle's report ("Mi mision en Chile en 1879", Edición, prólogo y notas por Félix Denegri Luna , Lima, Peru, 1979, Instituto de Estudios Histórico-Marítimos del Perú.) states that (page 84):

• En la mañana del 18 recibí una carta verbal* del señor ministro Fierro [Chilean Minister for Foreign Affairs] pidiéndome que le viese a las 12 del día siguiente, para tener una conferencia relativa al objeto de mi mision, y pocos momentos después llegó a mis manos un suplemento del "Diario Oficial", en el que se anunciaba que el ministro de relaciones exteriores había recibido desde Tacna, por medio de correos, y desde Caldera por el telegráfo, el decreto expedido por el presidente de Bolivia en 1° del mes de marzo, que seguía, en el cual establecíase por parte de esa nación el "casus belli" con Chile, con todos sus efectos y consequencias

(The text of envoy Lavalle is a primary source)

Jorge Besadre, the wellknown Peruvian historician states that same in "Historia de la Republica, La guerra con Chile",

Pero las pasiones excitadas no se enfriaron. El dí­a 18 de marzo se abrió un nuevo perí­odo de la misión Lavalle. Ese dí­a fue recibido en Santiago, desde Tacna por correo y desde Caldera por telégrafo el decreto expedido por el Presidente Daza y notificado al cuerpo diplomático el 14 de marzo estableciendo el casus belli con Chile con todos sus efectos y consecuencias, junto con otros decretos de ruptura de relaciones mientras durara la guerra y de expulsión y confiscación de bienes chilenos en Bolivia.

That is, on 18 March was published in Chilean official newspaper the Bolivian declaration of war. For understandable reasons some authors skips to repeat the date of the 1. March or the date of the 14 March or the date of the 18. March.

My proposal for the article is:

• On March 1, Bolivia issued a declaration of war on Chile and prohibited all commerce and communications with Chile "while the state-of-war provoked upon Bolivia lasts", provided Chileans ten days to leave Bolivian territory unless gravely ill or handicapped, embargoed Chilean furniture, property, and mining produce, allowed Chilean mining companies to continue operating under a government-appointed administrator, and provided all embargoes as temporary "unless the hostilities exercised by Chilean forces requires an energetic retaliation from Bolivia". Then on March 14, Bolivia's foreign minister Serapio Reyes Ortiz announced to representatives of foreign powers in Lima that a state of war now existed between herself and Chile. Bolivia then called on Peru to activate the alliance treaty, arguing that the Chile's invasion constituted a casus foederis. Chile, meanwhile, called on Peru to remain neutral. Peru refused.

In view of the fact that the 22 given sources support the text of the proposal, there should be no reason to bring the case to the RfC, what in any case can be done if Alex or others insists.

--Best regards, Keysanger (what?) 12:50, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

This doesn't surprise me at all. You, Keysanger:

1. Keep disregarding the sources which clearly state that the March 1 declaration was not a declaration of war (which include the source you provided: William F. Sater).
2. Keep disregarding the conflict of dates (March 14, March 18, February 27, and even February 7?) and attribute it to a "telegraph problem". Yet, the Bolivia-Peru communications barely took 3-4 days (Mollendo had telegraph lines connected to Lima), while the Peru-Chile communications were just a matter of hours. There was no telegraph problem.
3. Have yet to provide anoter source which verifies that the Bolivian legislature authorized war, but keep mentioning it as if it were a fact.
4. Keep insisting on the "Peru to remain neutral" stuff despite both Alex and I have explained it is redundant (repeated in the paragraph below).

Gerhard Lang's intepretation is interesting, to say the least. My understanding (from his text) is that Bolivia published the War Circular in Lima, on March 14, because Lima had telegraph lines. Other than that, nothing new is really being provided.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 14:46, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

1) There are a lot of sources that set the date of the Bdow to 1. March and the other sources doesn't contradict but support the dates as given in the proposal: the subsequent announcement of 14. March in Lima and the 18. March publication in Santiago. Sater's version doesn't say "was not a", he says "aparently was not a".

2) I don't know any 7? issue. La Paz was conected neither to Lima nor Arica nor Tacna. Mollendo is a town bordering the Pacific Ocean in southern Peru!.

3) I don't provide any other source about 27 February because the 27. February doesn't appear in the proposal.

4) The "Peru to remain neutral .. Peru refused" stuff can be shortened as far as appears in other place

Do you have substantive claims? or better, do you have reliable sources that states that "unter international law there wasn't a Bdow"?. --Best regards, Keysanger (what?) 18:13, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

1. "There are a lot" of sources which claim the war took place at other dates, thereby they contradict the March 1st idea.
2. I'm not even going to argue about the Sater source. Whether he had a poor use of words or thought it sounded good, the basic concept of his statement is that he is against the idea of Bolivia declaring war on March 1st. His change of mind from previous books only serves to confirm that, upon further research, he has realized his mistake.
3. La Paz -> Mail travels through Lake Titicaca (probably through steamboat) -> Mail reaches Mollendo -> Telegraph from Mollendo to Lima -> Hello World! Ramiro Prudencio Lizon in La Razon explains this quite clearly ([43]) and further claims that Chilean historian Benjamín Vicuña Mackenna wrote "the news did not reach La Paz through a long desert travel or in the slow step of a donkey, but rather in the wings of vapor and the electric telegraph".
4. In this old map ([44], Mollendo and Lima are among the "major telegraph" points by 1891. This didn't happen from one day to another, and serves to further support Mackenna's and Prudencio Lizon's statements. Your claim that there were "correspondence delays" which caused the "errors in the dates" is completely absurd.

In conclusion, since there is no general agreement among historians of when (what specific date) Bolivia supposedly "declared war", Wikipedia should not present any date as a fact. Alex's solution of simply presenting what happened based on the accounts from historians is, by far, the best option. Alex's solution not only provides a smooth read, but also gives readers the option to decide for themselves what they think about Hilarion Daza's actions (instead of being told he's the "bad" or "good" guy, it is up to the reader to evaluate his actions). If you could simply agree with that, as you originally did (but then changed your mind), then this problem could be over.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 20:54, 19 August 2011 (UTC)