Revision as of 03:46, 30 March 2012

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. South America: Bolivia / Chile / Peru High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject South America, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to South America on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.South AmericaWikipedia:WikiProject South AmericaTemplate:WikiProject South AmericaSouth America High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Bolivia (assessed as High-importance). This article is supported by WikiProject Chile (assessed as High-importance). This article is supported by WikiProject Peru (assessed as Top-importance). Military history: South America This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status: Referencing and citation: criterion met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met Associated task forces: /  South American military history task force

War of the Pacific received a peer review by Misplaced Pages editors, which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.

A fact from this article was featured on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the On this day section on March 23, 2011 and March 23, 2012.

Archives

Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15

This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present.

Pending issues

Issue 3: Repase references

For the "repase"-Theory are shown two references. The first one is a unknown page (HTTP 404) and the second one is a primary source of Andres Caceres and as such non-available for Misplaced Pages. Moreover, the section dont mention the given promise of not to fight against the Chilean government. --Keysanger (what?) 08:40, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

The information provided by Caceres is backed up by secondary sources, therefore his primary account stands. Added that the "Repaso" is not a theory, but a fact.--MarshalN20 | 19:09, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Please, write the complete paragraph that you mean support your sentences and delete the tag only when the discussion is finished. Best regards, --Keysanger (what?) 22:33, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

I will not do the work for you. I have done enough by providing the sources and page number. If you wish to improve the citations, feel free to do so on your own.--MarshalN20 | 18:51, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

You HAVE to do the work. And through reliable sources and not a lot of biased "testimonies". Best Regards, Keysanger (what?) 19:02, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

No, all that is required of me is to provide the source and page in which you can find the information. Anything else you want to do is up to you. I will not do the work for you.--MarshalN20 | 19:10, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

I can give you a cite from WP:BURDEN: The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material.. --Best regards, Keysanger (what?) 13:09, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

I have already provided the evidence. You're trying to make me do your work.--MarshalN20 | 14:19, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't believe the issue here is reliably sourced mention of repaso (the material definitely should be included) but the non neutral way the material is placed and presented.

The following paragraph appears at the end of the 'strategy' section:

The three nations claimed to adhere to the Geneva Red Cross Convention to protect the war wounded, prisoners, refugees, civilians, and other non-combatants. However, during the war, Chile commonly ordered a repaso (or repase), a method "to completely kill the dead" by executing all soldiers, regardless of injuries, of the opposing army left in the battlefied. After the Battle of Tacna, Chilean troops went as far as to enter field hospitals and execute all soldiers of the opposing Peruvian and Bolivian armies. The repaso further incremented the number of Peruvian casualties in the battles of San Juan, Chorrillos, and Miraflores. In the aftermath of the Battle of Huamachuco, Chilean Colonel Alejandro Gorostiaga ordered a repase under the pretext that they formed part of an irregular army and could therefore not be considered prisoners of war. Peruvian Colonel Leoncio Prado was among the few soldiers who were not killed during the Huamachuco repase, but was executed shortly thereafter.

It seems the facts are selected here to promote a view that Chile's conduct was barbaric. The facts should be included, but there needs to be a deeper analysis of the repaso. Why did Chile do this? Whose idea was it? What were they trying to achieve? And so on. Alex Harvey (talk) 10:41, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Regardless of how much explanation is made, the repaso will continue to be a sad story in the course of the war.--MarshalN20 | 14:07, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Alex, again are you making comments like "the facts are selected", again if you don't know about the facts of this war you can't give a opinion like this... If the facts seem "barbaric" is because they were barbaric, can you understand that? Can you understand than the Chilean troops came to Peru to burn, loot and rape every town and city in its way? This is not about your opinion or our opinion about the facts of the war, is about the facts itself. Greetings. --Ian (CloudAOC) | 03:50, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Ian, what I'm saying is this paragraph doesn't begin to satisfy my historical interest - it is plain that it has been written by someone with an anti-Chilean axe to grind. If I was the reader, I would flag this paragraph as probably unreliable and do my own investigation. That's not good for you if you want the reader to regard this as accurate. I am not suggesting that the Chilean acts weren't "barbaric". I am sure that some Peruvian actions were barbaric too - this is normal in all wars. It just isn't a serious analysis. So I'm suggesting, go deeper & improve the article. Perhaps I'll look into it further if I get time. Alex Harvey (talk) 11:34, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

seriously there's nothing sinister about my edits, im just correcting the english and just mentioning who wrote what about the repaso. regrettably all the references about the repaso are from peruvian sources...therefore its imperative to point this out, in order to protect the integrity of this article. You --Ian (CloudAOC) labelling my edits as vandelism is very obnoxious and makes me think you just want to protect a certain point of view. Since im not disputing the information or making any deletions, my edits are justified--IggyAU (talk) 22:25, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Again sir, this is not a historiographic article, it's an historic one, therefore, the addition of the origin of the repaso sources can be interpreted than the repaso is just a "theory" sustained only by Peruvian authors and not a fact, registered not only by Peruvian accounts but also by neutral witnesses. In fact, this has been objected before for several other issues, and the consensus was than the article must contain only facts, not points-of-view by nation. And the repaso was a fact, it happens. Denying this is like denying the Jewish Holocaust by the Nazi Germany. I reject all your insinuations about my behavior, and I suggest than you must start sustaining your additions to the articule than questioning the editions by other editors involved in its improvement. Greetings --Ian (CloudAOC) | 16:39, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Iggy, your edits are disruptive to the article in the sense that you are making personal claims on matters which, up to know, you have not demonstrated as actually controversial in the historical community. When you write that "Peruvian historians...claim," you are casting doubt on the fact that the repaso was used by Chilean troops during the war. If you can provide a reliable source which argues that the repaso did not happen, then and only then will it be necessary to identify what can be considered a Peruvian perspective on matters. Best of wishes.--MarshalN20 | 16:53, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

sadly the repaso claim is an opinion of the peruvian POV, to use the holocaust analogy to describe those who question the legitimacy of the repaso claim is laughable. IAN the holocaust is proven by film footage, confessions from NAZI's and evidence from the nerumberg trials. Sadly the repaso claim are based on one primary source in Mariano Felipe Paz Soldan who fled to Argentina during the War. All other documents relating to the repaso are only secondary sources based on that Peruvian author. To openly declare repaso AS FACT is disturbing, if I was to use the WWII analogy as per IAN, having a one sided view on the repaso is like the NAZI propaganda campaign against the Jews.--202.138.9.251 (talk) 07:24, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

the genesis of the repaso claim seems to originate from Mariano Felipe Paz Soldan, a quick check of all references listed for this subject (all Peruvian btw) have Mariano Felipe Paz Soladan mentioned. According to the wikipedia page on him "During the disastrous war with Chile, he sought refuge in Buenos Aires where he was made professor in the Colegio Nacional de Buenos Aires and where he wrote and published a history of the war (1884)". I have many questions on this subject; what other references are there on the repaso? was there any official war crimes BoldItalicEmbedded fileSignature and timestampLinkAdvancedSpecial charactersHelpCite committed? any arrests? any chilean confessions? This article is rather one sided on this matter and must be revised and I'm not convinced this subject is FACT but just Peruvian opinion being labelled as FACT--XavierIT (talk) 12:30, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

All you have to do is present a reliable source which questions the Repaso, and that is all. Up to now, none of you have done this; and that is assuming you are all not the same person. Regards.--MarshalN20 | 15:37, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

did you even read my post? please read it again, you seem to be missing the point, maybe you can respond to the issues raised instead of providing a condescending answer, the previous post before mine is also valid. regards --XavierIT (talk) 16:20, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

BTW, when it says "Chile commonly ordered a repaso" do you assume that the president of chile gave the alleged order? chilean general? chilean general's wife? That paragraph needs rewording or remove it all together, this is an example of weasel words, regards --XavierIT (talk) 16:50, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

All we need to change the material is one reliable source that contradicts it. If you refuse or cannot provide us with such a source, then you have no grounds to make a change to the article. Please do not edit the article without providing such a source, otherwise you will be reported to the administrators. Best regards.--MarshalN20 | 17:41, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Issue 24: Topater

{{disputed}}

This battle was on 23 March 1879, also during the "Peruvian Mediation". I moved the passage to the right sub-section but it was reverted. I moved it again and hope the reverter gives his reasons at this place. --Best regards, Keysanger (what?) 09:54, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

The Battle of Topater took place during the Chilean invasion of the Bolivian coastline. It does not fit in with Peru's mediation.--MarshalN20 | 13:37, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Also the Treaty of Ancon in 1884 was signed during the Chilean occupation of the Litoral. Every section and subsection has a time limit we cann't exceed. Hence the battle belong to Peruvian Mediation. --Best regards, Keysanger (what?) 14:45, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

The Battle of Topater was on 1879, not 1884.--MarshalN20 | 16:33, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

The problem is the chronology of the battles, normally the War actions are divided as follows:

• Bolivian Litoral Campaign (February 1879 - December 1879), from Topater to Tambillo.
• Naval Campaign (April 1879 - October 1879) from Chipana to Angamos.
• Tarapacá Campaign (November 1879) from Pisagua to Tarapacá
• Tacna - Arica Campaign (December 1879 - June 1880) from Ilo to Arica
• Lima Campaign (November 1880 - January 1881) from Lurin to Miraflores
• Breña Campaign (February 1880 - July 1884) from Miraflores to Huamachuco

As you can see, the campaigns are not subsequent, and even some battles aren't mentioned, like Pisagua. I suggest a complete revision of the dates and the campaigns articles. What do you think? Greetings. --Ian (CloudAOC) | 20:45, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

The battle simply doesn't fit in the section that deals with Peru's mediation. It's completely random. It fits in better with the "Crisis" section since (A) It's the first battle of the war and (B) What effect did it have on Peru's mediation?--MarshalN20 | 02:15, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

We can't "re"-write the history. If occured during the PM then we tell it in the PM subsection. --Best regards, Keysanger (what?) 13:13, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Rewrite history? haha. Are you joking? The current version is correct. We have explained why it is correct. If you change it, we will report your edit as disruptive. Best regards.--MarshalN20 | 13:46, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't have a strong opinion on what section this belongs in but the argument that because "section X covers dates A to B therefore anything that happened between A and B needs to be in section X" doesn't make sense to me. By this logic the battle should also appear in our article on the Anglo-Zulu War simply because the dates coincide. Is there some other reason, apart from the dates, that Keysanger wants this in the PM section? Alex Harvey (talk) 10:30, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Dates overlap in both sections. The difference is that while one section focuses on the events taking place in the Litoral Department, the other focuses on the Peruvian Mediation. I am guessing this is something Keysanger can easily understand.--MarshalN20 | 21:19, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Alex, please take a look to Historiography

• it is organized chronologically

That is, WP cann't dispose freely about the sequence of facts. --Best regards, Keysanger (what?) 10:13, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

The sequence of information is being correctly placed with the dates. No error is being made. The "Peruvian Mediation" section is meant solely to discuss Peru's mediation, and nothing more. The Battle of Topater happened in the context of the "Crisis" of Antofagasta, therefore it is included in the "Crisis" section. My argument makes more sense than your position. Regards.--MarshalN20 |

Issue 36: Grau's gallantry

That has nothing to do with the war. It is Peruvian folklore and most of the editors have seen it. --Best regards, Keysanger (what?) 16:56, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

We need to improve that part, true. It's not as simple as removing it, but rather better incorporating it into the text. Prat and Grau are important figures in the conflict.--MarshalN20 | 14:34, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

is it not better to discuss that thing in the aftermath section? At the end the "bravery" and "gallantry" of figuras like Bolognesi, Abaroa, Prat and Grau had more impact after the war than during it. Chiton magnificus (talk) 22:36, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

I understand what you mean, but Prat and Grau are a special case. Allow me to elaborate:

• Bolognesi had an impact in post-war Peru due to his defiant declarations prior to the Battle of Arica, mainly because overtime people forgot why he took such a decision (Bolognesi expected the minefields to help him, which they didn't because a traitor told the Chileans where to cross safely, and he also expected reinforcements to arrive, which they also never arrived) and also because it played an important part in Peru's claims over Tacna and Arica (which remained occupied by Chile even after the war was over).
• Abaroa's brave stand was mostly forgotten until recent decades. During the war, things went on so fast that his deed was left largely ignored.

Now, on the other hand:

• It is recorded that Prat's dead became a symbol for Chile during the conflict. He became a martyr, akin to Diego Portales in the War of the Confederation.
• Similarly, it is record that Grau upheld Peruvian morale during the conflict, and also scared the soul out of the Chilean public (despite, in reality, Grau's Huascar stood no chance against the powerful Blanco and Cochrane).

Post-war Grau's and Prat's legacy has certainly been enlarged. Grau has been a particularly important post-war figure for even Bolivia and Chile. However, their post-war glory (while it may now even overshadow their fame during the conflict) does not eliminate the fact that both of these men played an important role during the War of the Pacific. Regards.--MarshalN20 | 23:52, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Unresolved issues

Issue 19: Secret treaty

{{POV}}{{confusing}}

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Issue 23: References

{{cite check}}

There are a lot of unnedded references, for example:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Issue 25: Despite cooperation

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

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

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

Issue 26: and Bolivia imposed a 10 cent tax

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Issue 28: After war

The article states that

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

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

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

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

Issue 29: Mutual Defense System 1

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

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

Issue 30: Mutual Defense System 2

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

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

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

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

Issue 31: Mutual Defense System 3

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

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

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

Issue 32: Mutual Defense System 4

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

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

Issue 33: Bolivian declaration of war

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

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

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

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

Issue 34: Peruvian mediation 1

The article states:

However, not only did Peru hold a poorly equipped military

That is misleading the reader. WP wanrs about However. --Best regards, Keysanger (what?) 16:56, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Can you explain how this phrase can mislead the reader (besides the "however")?. And also, did you try to fix it by yourself? Regards.--Ian (CloudAOC) | 19:58, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

In this case, "however" is being properly used as a contrast to the claim that Peru was making war preparations. The reader is not being misled.--MarshalN20 | 03:39, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Exactly, and because Keysanger don't provide any other argument to this issue besides a technicism ("however") , this issue is closed. Regards.----Ian (CloudAOC) | 03:48, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

I can't see the misleading part of the statement. Plase explain further Keysanger.Chiton magnificus (talk) 17:25, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

The context of the sentence is:

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

The first part of the text (should) state(s) that Chileans didn't trust Lavalle's words and there only two reasons (they favored Bolivia and the secret treaty) why they discomfited him.

The second part of the text attempt to dilute the Chilean reasons. "However", as WP:EDITORIAL correctly warns us, may imply a relationship between two statements where none exists, perhaps inappropriately undermining the first or giving undue precedence to the credibility of the second.

The state of any armed forces is often not a reason to wage (or not) a war. There is a lot of cases where weak countries init a war against a powerfull power: Falklands War, Cenepa War, Pacific War, etc. So, the suggested rationale for a Peruvian pacifism is false. It is probably true that president Prado didn't want the war and that the Peruvian army wasn't ready but that aren't a proof that Peru didn't init the preparations toward war, as the controversial text suggests.

My proposal is to delete the complete second part ("however ...") or we can complete the sentence adding the catastrophal state of the Chilean army and the economic crisis in Chile during the late 70s. Some historians went so far to say that the Chilean economic crisis was the reason of the war. Also Lavalle, in his report about the mediation stated that in Peru, all wanted the war: the military, the Pierolists, the Pradists, the bussines men, etc.

Moreover, the word "to discomfit" is obviously POV:

• dis·com·fit    verb (used with object)
  • 1. to confuse and deject; disconcert: to be discomfited by a question.
  • 2. to frustrate the plans of; thwart; foil.
  • 3. Archaic . to defeat utterly; rout: The army was discomfited in every battle.

The Chilean government was neither defeated nor frustrated nor confused by the Peruvian mediation. As Peru didn't declared neutral, Chile inmediately declared the war. I don't see any confusion. The right English verb to describe the situation is "to mistrust"

--Best regards, Keysanger (what?) 11:51, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

The context of the sentence in question is the following:

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

1. Based on this context, your original argument is a fallacy. Your deletion proposal is, from my part, denied. Any deletion of the sourced material shall be considered vandalism.
2. Regarding the state of Chile's army, that is matter suited for the "crisis" or "background" section. No correlation exists between it and the true context of the information.
3. I never use in my speech the term "discomfit", and rather it sounds like one of those terms you'd use without knowing what it means.

Best of wishes.--MarshalN20 | 23:47, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Issue 35: Peruvian mediation 2

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

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

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

Issue 10 Grau's gallantry

This is the continuation of the issue 10, unresolved. For this issue I raised a RfC brought some feedback from the community (see RfC issue 10):

For inclusion

• MarshalN20
• DonaldRichardSands
• Ian Cloudac

For exclusion

• Alex
• Keysanger (believe me, I am against)
• Noleander
• Ludwigs2
• John Carter
• Chiton Magnificus

Misplaced Pages is not a democracy, but as the case "BDoW" shows, sometimes is the only way to resolve cases where consensus can't be reached.

I plead for a complete delete of the funny sentences about Grau's chavalry. By the way, I have been also always against the inclusion of glorification of heros, also of Prats, Abaroa, Grau and many others who die for his ideas. In my personal opinion, it is a very reduced view of historical facts, this apotheosis works always for some political ideas, mostly nationalism. But this is my personal opinion, please don't include it in the WP.

--Best regards, Keysanger (what?) 11:53, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Um, "chavallery" doesn't appear in the article and hasn't in any of the recent revisions that I checked. Nyttend (talk) 21:23, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi Nyttend, thank you for your interest in our discussion. The text has been changed since the begin of the discussion in 2011 and I pasted the wrong word. The right one is gallantry and the controversial paragraph is:

Grau's gallantry during the conflict, especially his treatment of Prat's family and rescue of Chilean sailors in Iquique, gained him widespread recognition as the Caballero de los Mares ("Knight of the Seas"). His heroism and success upheld Peruvian morale in the early stages of the conflict. Despite being outnumbered, Grau's monitor Huáscar held off the Chilean navy for six consecutive months. During this time the Huáscar participated in the Battle of Antofagasta (May 26, 1879) and the Second Battle Antofagasta (August 28, 1879). The climax finally came ...

Nyttend, do you think that this text is neutral, relevant, balanced and Misplaced Pages has given the due weight to the facts?, was you taught in the school or did you know anyway about a "Knight of the Seas"?, do you think is it neutral to glorify the heros of one country and to dismiss others?, do you think that the this apotheosis is a task of Misplaced Pages?, do you think that Abraham Lincoln is more or less important that Nelson?. --Best regards, Keysanger (what?) 12:14, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

You're twisting things out of context. Grau was (and probably is only) relevant to the War of the Pacific. The sources demonstrate that his acts upheld Peruvian morale in the early stages of the conflict, which is relevant. Added that the current text in no form or way compares Grau to another figure. Regards.--MarshalN20 | 14:02, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

I proceeded to delete the verbose peacock about Prat and Grau according to the majority of the editors involved in the discussion. --Best regards, Keysanger (what?) 10:01, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Deleting the material on the Huascar's actions are in no form or way acceptable. Your deletion of that sourced content has nothing to do with this discussion on Miguel Grau's gallantry, which has now been reduced to half a sentence.--MarshalN20 | 01:59, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Marshall, what is at stakeis not all of Huascars actions but Captain Miguel Grau's decision to save shipwrecked Chilean sailors and send his formal condolences to Prat's wife earned him widespread recognition to all sides of the conflict, dubbing him the "Gentleman of the Seas". Can you imagine the WWII article explaining nicknames of Romel, Paul, etc.? In the aftermath section we can surely write about his Graus later legacy as hero. In the lead and course of actions sections in the article his "gallantry" are just excessive and distracting information from main point. Chiton magnificus (talk) 03:46, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Other discussions / comments

Disputed neutrality

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hi Coludac,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Let's see the question in a systematic way:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mahan

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

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

repaso

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Just a query

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

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

Hi Chelios,

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

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

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

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

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

Reverts by an editor

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• All unassessed articles
• Start-Class South America articles
• High-importance South America articles
• Start-Class Bolivia articles
• High-importance Bolivia articles
• WikiProject Bolivia articles
• Start-Class Chile articles
• High-importance Chile articles
• WikiProject Chile articles
• Start-Class Peru articles
• Top-importance Peru articles
• WikiProject Peru articles
• WikiProject South America articles
• B-Class military history articles
• B-Class South American military history articles
• South American military history task force articles
• Old requests for peer review
• Selected anniversaries (March 2011)
• Selected anniversaries (March 2012)